Preamble

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PETITIONS

Tail Docking

Mr. Harry Greenway: I beg to ask leave to present a petition in the name of Mrs. Trediwell of the voluntary Society for Animal Protection in Middlesex. It is addressed to
the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled. The Humble Petition of the Society for Animal Protection sheweth that tail docking of dogs is routinely carried out because the result is thought by most official docked breed associations "to improve appearance". The Royal college of Veterinary Surgeons and the British Veterinary Associations have long argued that tail docking is an unnecessary and painful surgical mutilation, sometimes causing extreme suffering and serious complications. Moreover, there is no benefit to a dog having a docked tail.
I strongly support the petition and hope that Her Majesty's Government will be able to take action in this important matter.
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House will amend the Protection of Animals Act 1911, to protect dogs against such unnecessary mutilation. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, etc.

To lie upon the Table.

Swimming

Mr. Harry Greenway: I wish also to present a petition on behalf of the Amateur Swimming Association, which collected 30,000 signatures in a week. It was presented to me recently by the association and by Mr. Duncan Goodhew, an international swimmer who is well known in the House. It is addressed to
the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of members of swimming classes. affiliated to the Amateur Swimming Association sheweth, That swimming is the most popular active recreation in the country, That the Amateur Swimming Association has 1,690 affiliated clubs with a total of approximately 300,000 members. That approximately 250,000 children and adults are taught to swim in Britain each year by swimming clubs and their members, That the ability to swim contributes both to personal safety and the good health of individuals. That the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Minister for Sport are mindful that local authorities should not put out to tender the management of publicly owned swimming facilities, without safeguarding the interests of swimming clubs and their members, That without local authority control of charges and concessionary charges, opening hours and the programming of the pools for such uses as teaching and competitions, the survival of swimming clubs, the training of swimmers for state and Olympic competition and the teaching of swimming to both children and adults will be under very grave threat.
The Amateur Swimming Association is well aware of the welcome concessions made by the Minister with responsibility for sport in his statement last week. However, it is still concerned and it has my strong support.
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House will use its best endeavours to prevent the compulsory introduction of private management of publicly owned swimming facilities without safeguarding the interests of swimmers and swimming clubs.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray, etc.

To lie upon the Table

Orders of the Day — Malicious Communications Bill

Lords amendment considered

Clause 1

OFFENCE OF SENDING LETTERS ETC. WITH INTENT TO CAUSE DISTRESS OR ANXIETY

Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 2, line 2, leave out "level 3" and insert "level 4"

Read a Second time

Mr. Greg Knight: I beg to move, as an amendment to the Lords amendment,
Leave out '"level 4"' and insert '"level 5"'
I should like to congratulate my hon. Friend the hon. Member of Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) on getting his Bill through the other place largely in the form in which it was drafted. However, in my view the Bill can still be improved.
Hon. Members will probably be aware that the Bill provides for courts to impose a maximum fine of £400 on anyone found guilty of sending a malicious communication. The Lords amendment increases the fine to a maximum of £1,000, but my amendment seeks to give courts power to impose a maximum fine of £2,000. I hope that when my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood has heard what I have to say, he will be prepared to give some ground and move away from the present maximum of £400.
On Second Reading, my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office gave the reasons why he thought the maximum of £400 was correct:
People do not like this offence, and want to try to stamp it out, but we must get the penalty fixed at the right level. My hon. Friend"—
that is, my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood—
suggests that it should be fixed at £400. In the trade that is a level 3 fine, and I think that it is probably about right".—[Official Report, 12 February 1988; Vol. 127, c. 635.]

Mr. Dennis Skinner: What does a level 3 fine mean?

Mr. Knight: I accept that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is not a lawyer. [Interruption.]

Mr. Skinner: Did the hon. Gentleman hear his hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) say that if I was a lawyer I would make a fortune?

Mr. Knight: Knowing the cantankerous nature of the hon. Member for Bolsover and the way in which he is always ready to support a good fight, I have no doubt that if he were a lawyer he would make a fortune.
The scale of fines set down by Parliament for level 1 is £50, for level 2 it is £100 and for level 3—the level to which I referred when quoting my hon. Friend the Minister—it is £400. My amendment seeks to increase the fine to level 5, which is £2,000

Mr. Skinner: Is there anything above that?

Mr. Knight: There is nothing above that that we could properly debate today.
What is my reason for suggesting this increase to £2,000? It is not a figure that I have plucked out of the air. I should like to refer the House to the Law Commission's report on poison pen letters, published by Her Majesty's Stationery Office. The Law Commission set up for this purpose was composed of the following commissioners: the honourable Mr. Justice Ralph Gibson, who was its chairman, Mr. Trevor Aldridge, Mr. Brian Davenport QC, Professor Julian Farrand and Mrs. Brenda Hoggett. The commissioners were charged with examining the scope of the existing provisions of the criminal law for dealing with people who send poison pen letters and similar material. The review that they undertook arose out of the Law Commission's examination of the common law offence of criminal libel and was part of the programme of codification of the criminal law in England and Wales.
In quite a lengthy report, the Law Commission recommended the creation of a new statutory offence to penalise people who send or deliver poison pen letters and similar messages for the purpose of causing distress or anxiety. It concluded that the new offence should be triable only in a magistrates court. It submitted with its report a draft of what it said should be in a Malicious Communications Bill.
I am aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood based his Bill largely on the Law Commission's report, but he departed from its recommendations in respect of the penalty that was recommended. Paragraph D on page 27 of the Law Commission's report says:
Our working paper proposed that the maximum penalty currently available in magistrates' courts should apply in this case, that is six months' imprisonment or a fine of £2,000"—
for the benefit of the hon. Member for Bolsover, that is level 5—
or both. Only one commentator disagreed with our provisional proposal and suggested that three months' imprisonment might be more appropriate on the grounds that six months appeared excessive in comparison with the maximum penalty for making obscene telephone calls which is at present limited to a maximum fine of £400 (level 3), without the possibility of a sentence of imprisonment being imposed.
9.45 am
Clearly my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood believes that the maximum penalty should be £400 because it is in line with other similar provisions. What does the Law Commission say about this matter? Paragraph 4.48 of its report says:
We must first explain why we favour giving magistrates' courts the power to imprison a person convicted of sending a poison-pen letter. In the working paper we gave two reasons: first, we could conceive of circumstances in very serious cases in which a sentence of imprisonment might be the only suitable form of punishment; secondly, the availability of a number of different types of sentence in magistrates' courts depends upon the existence of the power to imprison in relation to the particular offence of which the defendant has been convicted.
A magistrates court cannot make a hospital order under section 37 of the Mental Health Act 1983 unless the defendant has been convicted of an offence that is punishable by imprisonment. As some of those who will send poison-pen letters are likely to be suffering from a condition of the mind that requires medical treatment or help, I took the view in Committee that it was desirable for powers of imprisonment to be available to magistrates.

Mr. Robin Corbett: The last time that we debated this subject, it was rightly said that


imprisonment was not appropriate. The hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight) acknowledged that, as imprisonment is not attached to conviction in cases arising under the Bill, magistrates do not have powers under the Mental Health Act 1983, but there are many other routes by which they can advise that a convicted person should receive help and treatment.

Mr.Knight: The hon.Gentleman makes a fair point. He canvassed this matter in earlier debates on the subject, and I accept what he says. However, I can envisage occasions when the letter is so malicious and the effect on its recipient so dramatic that courts may decide, even in the absence of any medical condition, that a short period of imprisonment is appropriate.
I defend the Law Commissioner's view, which I share, that imprisonment should he available. That, however, is not the strict purpose of my amendment. I mentioned imprisonment to show the House that respected opinion that has considered this matter—the Law Commission—concluded that we should go further than my amendment. If my amendment is accepted, it will give courts power to impose fines up to £2,000. Those who have examined this subject in detail, who could colloquially be called experts, came to the view that there should be a maximum fine of £2,000 and the provision of imprisonment.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: A few moments ago the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight) said that the courts should be able to send people to prison for repeated offences or for offences that suggest that they need treatment for a mental condition,. In those circumstances, why is the hon. Gentleman restricting the scope of his amendment to a fine of only £2,000? Why has he not followed the logic of his argument and ensured that, if necessary, the courts should be able to send someone to prison or for mental health treatment?

Mr. Knight: That is a fair question, but since I became a Member of Parliament in 1983, I have learnt that in this place one takes what one can get and that if one seeks to obtain an amendment that is strictly in line with one's views one may alienate a large number of hon. Members. My amendment is a compromise. It does not go as far as I should like, but it goes further than that provided by my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood. It also goes further than those in another place wanted it to go. However, it is a step in the right direction.
The Law Commission, having examined all the alternatives, said in paragraph 4.50 on page 28 of its report:
Accordingly, we recommend that the maximum penalty for the new offence should be six months' imprisonment or a fine of £2,000 … or both.
Having examined all the options, the Law Commission did not equivocate. It came down unreservedly in favour of both imprisonment and a fine of the order that I am urging the House to accept. As the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) has pointed out, my proposal is more modest than the Law Commission's recommendation.

Mr. Eric Forth (Mid-Worcestershire): I did not take part in the previous proceedings, and I am therefore a little confused about what my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight) has said. Why has it taken so long to arrive at this position? Can he explain why my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) set a lower level of penalty during the early stages while at this

fairly late stage my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North is suggesting a penalty that is in line with the Law Commission's recommendation? That is odd.
I should have thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood would have arrived at that figure straight away. Why are we reaching it by such a roundabout route?

Mr. Knight: That is not strictly correct. The Bill was debated in Committee of the whole House and I urged my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood to move further up the scale than level 3. In reply, the Minister of State, Home Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Mr. Patten) said:
The sending of a malicious communication certainly causes distress to the recipient, but we must not make the penalty out of proportion to the gravity of the offence and out of proportion to other offences already on the statute book. The penalty at level 3 is the same as that for broadly similar offences under the Telecommunications Act 1984 and Public Order Act 1986.
Both my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood and my hon. Friend the Minister of State declined to go further, despite my entreaties. They said that level 3 was in line with other measures on the statute book. As the other place took a similar view to that which I expressed in Committee, I am taking this opportunity to push my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood a little further. When he has listened to the arguments, I hope that he will agree to give some ground. If he is not prepared to go all the way and accept my amendment, I hope that he will at least agree to accept the Lords amendment.

Mr. Forth: It seems that my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood and my hon. Friend the Minister of State are isolated, because the other place appears to support my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight). I am sure that he will receive a great deal of support from hon. Members. I detect that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is attracted by his argument. The Minister of State's judgment is usually impeccable, but it can go astray occasionally. Both he and my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood are equating this offence with other offences, but my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North begs to differ. He thinks that the offence is different: in its nature, quality and quantity. Is that the right interpretation of my hon. Friend's argument?

Mr. Knight: I agree with my hon. Friend's last statement, because my hon. Friend the Minister of State went on to say:
We must be consistent and keep the penalties for similar offences in line."—[Official Report, 22 April 1988; Vol. 131, c. 1155.]
I do not want to be unfair, however, to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department.

Mr. Skinner: What is the hon. Gentleman dragging him in for?

Mr. Knight: I am dragging him in to absolve him of any blame, because in Committee it was the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon who put forward these arguments.

Mr. Corbett: Where is he?

Mr. Knight: My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department is here today. As he is a very reasonable man, I hope that he will accept some of my points and that the Government will agree that we should move up the scale.

Mr. Chris Butler: Is there not an argument that higher penalties should apply to similar offences, such as malicious telephone calls, that can be deeply disturbing to those who receive them?

Mr. Knight: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I do not accept the argument that, as the law provides for lower penalties for other offences, we should go along with them. If I understand him rightly, he is saying that we should consider increasing the penalties for other offences. If that is his point, I wholeheartedly agree with him.
The question for the House is, what is the right penalty. My hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood drafted his Bill with the best of intentions, but I think that he has got it wrong. The level is too low and we should increase it. I hope that the House will consider accepting the Lords amendment, even if it cannot accept my amendment.

Mr. Wigley: I, too, was not involved in the earlier stages of the Bill, but am I right in assuming that a letter or other article that conveys a message includes a tape-recorded message, in which case the offence, as the hon. Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Butler) said, could be very deeply offensive and would justify a heavier punishment?

Mr. Knight: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is a lawyer, but he has correctly analysed the Bill. It includes tape recordings. It also includes obscene messages put on floppy disks. Such messages would not be read until they were inserted in the computer. The scope of the Bill is fairly wide-ranging and would include obscene messages sent in that way.

Mr. Skinner: I get what can loosely be described as obscene pen letters from Tiny Rowland. He sends them to me on behalf of Lonrho plc to encourage me to send them on to Harrods. I think that he sends them to other Members of Parliament. Would such letters be described as poison pen letters? They are sent by Tiny Rowland to Members of Parliament with a view to causing anxiety and distress at Harrods.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. We are discussing a narrow point, not the Bill in general.

Mr. Skinner: We have to reach a decision about the different levels of penalty. We are not messing around with £400. We are discussing levels 3 and 4, and we could reach level 5. I have to consider the poison pen letters that are sent from Tiny Rowland via me to Harrods. Is that point covered by the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight)? I want to know—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This is supposed to be an intervention. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to address the House, perhaps he will try to catch my eye later, but interventions must be brief.

Mr. Skinner: I am after the lawyer's advice first. I want to know whether the letter from the Attorney-General that caused anxiety and distress to the right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan) during the Westland affair could be—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman has gone far enough—perhaps too far.

Mr. Skinner: I have certainly got him worried.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has got me worried.

Mr. Skinner: It could be a worrying day.

10 am

Mr. Knight: I am quite prepared to give the hon. Gentleman advice outside the Chamber, hut of course he will have to pay the usual fee.

Mr. Forth: The usual exorbitant fee.

Mr. Knight: Indeed—on level 5.
Perhaps Tiny Rowland believes that the hon. Member for Bolsover is running for leadership of the Labour party, and that is why he is sending him these missives. The Bill would cover all communications, including those to a Member of Parliament, so if the hon. Gentleman is distressed or caused anxiety by any letter that he receives, were the Bill to become law he could ensure that the sender was properly prosecuted.

Mr. Forth: If a Member of Parliament sends an offensive letter to a constituent will he be covered by parliamentary privilege, or will he be subject to the provisions of the Bill?

Mr. Knight: The Bill provides that when a letter is sent in the normal course of business that constitutes a defence. I suppose that a Member of Parliament could argue that if his letter was in the proper terms, he had not committed an offence. In my opinion, the defence would not be absolute. I can envisage circumstances in which a Member of Parliament could fall foul of the law.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hogg): I am sorry to distress my hon. Friend, but the offence applies only to dunning letters, and I am not sure how often Members of Parliament send dunning letters to their constituents.

Mr. Knight: I suppose that if a Member of Parliament was also a lawyer who was owed some money, and he wrote on his House of Commons headed paper, that might be covered, but I agree that that is an arguable point.
I have read and reread the Law Commission's report and I can see that it was not hesitant in coming to its recommendation on the level of fine. It is not as if it concluded that it was an arguable case, and that there were weighty arguments in favour of level 3 or level 4. It came down unequivocally and unanimously in favour of level 5. With the greatest respect, I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood has missed the point to some extent, because, if we agree to level 5, we are not saying that in every case there should be a fine of £2,000. We are saying that we are giving the courts power, if necessary, to impose the larger fine.
I will give an example that will be close to the heart of the hon. Member for Bolsover. It is an example vaguely analogous to the Geoffrey Collier case. A stockbroker who is a millionaire sends a malicious communication designed to cause anxiety and distress—perhaps to do with share dealings or some other business proposition that he wants to force through. He causes so much distress and depression to the recipient that the recipient suffers a complete breakdown in health. Are we to say that the fine of £2,000 is too much in that case?
The main purpose of criminal proceedings is punishment, and the courts of course will consider the person they have before them and find out what his income is. They will pitch the level of the fine to some extent


according to that person's wealth. If the courts consider that that person should know better and should be setting an example, they will often decide to impose a very heavy fine. If the courts are dealing with someone very wealthy, who has sent a most obnoxious letter that has caused distress, and perhaps injured the health of the recipient, can we say that £400 is sufficient? I say that it is not.

Mrs. Teresa Gorman: It is unfortunate that my hon. Friend chose a stockbroker as an example, because, generally, he would be involved in perfectly legitimate and honourable business practices. He would be careful how he writes to people, because his very business depends on good relations with his clients and the public. Will my hon. Friend comment on someone in a powerful position, such as the leader of a trade union, who may well write a letter to one of his members threatening that, if that person does not conform to certain practices, such as an unofficial strike—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Briefly, please.

Mrs. Gorman: —he may be sent a letter saying that he will lose his job. How does my hon. Friend react to that? What level of punishment does he consider appropriate in that case?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If hon. Members wish to make speeches, I wish that they would do it in the usual way—by seeking to catch the eye of the occupant of the Chair rather than by making long interventions.

Mr. Knight: I do not want my hon. Friend to think that I am mounting an attack on stockbrokers. I was merely giving an example of a case in which the courts might want to impose a far heavier fine than £400. As to the case that my hon. Friend mentioned, it would all depend on the wording of the letter and whether there was an unwarranted threat, which is what the Bill requires. It also requires that the information is false and that the sender knows or believes it to be false. The purpose of the communication should be to cause personal distress or anxiety. I can envisage a case of a trade union official exceeding his authority, being particularly offensive and causing distress, and that being covered by the Bill.

Mr. Corbett: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that such a letter would he written by a general secretary or another officer within the rules of the union, or at the instruction of the union's executive council? The letter would not be written in the context in which we have conducted this debate. The hon. Gentleman may take the view that it is unlikely that the Bill would cover such a letter. There may be other ways in which to deal with it.

Mr. Knight: I agree that such a case is unlikely. I believe that most trade union leaders and officials try to conform to the law. In the normal course of their business, if they sent a letter that is robust but no more, the Bill would not be relevant. My hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) spoke about a letter which was so offensive and over the top that it would probably be in breach of union rules, but of course there are rogue trade union officials, just as there are rogue stockbrokers. The point of my example, however, was simply to draw attention to the adequacy or otherwise of the proposed level of fine.
I hope that, having heard my examples, the whole House agrees that the proposed level of fine is inadequate. We should send a clear message to the courts that we

regard the sending of malicious communications so seriously that we are prepared to empower them to impose very heavy fines when appropriate. Such fines, however, are not mandatory. I believe that level 5 is about right. If my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood cannot go with me all the way, I hope that he will reflect on the matter and perhaps agree to urge the House to accept the Lords amendment.
I am not particularly wedded to my amendment, but I tabled it so that I could urge my hon. Friend to go further than a £400 fine. After the interventions from hon. Members on both sides of the House expressing the apparently unanimous view that the Bill does not go far enough, I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood will consider the argument and agree that we should raise the fine from level 3.

Mr. Andy Stewart: There have already been lengthy discussions in this House and in another place about the penalty proposed in my Bill. Concern has been expressed about whether the penalty is sufficiently high to punish adequately or deter those who send malicious communications. In Committee in the House, I resisted an amendment from my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight) to increase the fine to level 5 on the standard scale to a maximum of £2,000. My hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North has now tabled his amendment again. I still believe that a maximum fine of £2,000 is too high.
Sending a malicious communication can cause serious distress and it is right that such an offence should attract a level of penalty that properly reflects the gravity of the offence. However, £2,000 is the highest financial penalty that may normally be awarded by a magistrates' court. As such, it should apply to offences which may be dealt with by a magistrates court, in particular cases which may cause physical hurt or damage to a person or property or cases where a person stands to gain financially from an illegal act.
Sending a malicious communication is serious. We all recognise the misery that that can cause and agree that the action should be punished. That is the purpose of my Bill. However, it is not a requirement of the offence that distress or anxiety should actually be caused. For that reason, I do not believe that the offence falls into the most serious category of offences with which a magistrates court may have to deal. However, I recognise the concern expressed in the reasoned arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North and in another place about the adequacy of a fine of level 3 which I proposed in my Bill. I accept the need to respond to that concern.
When the Bill's sponsor in another place, Lord Campbell of Alloway, sought my views on the possibility of a higher penalty, I was happy on reflection, bearing in mind what my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North had argued here, to agree that a penalty at level 4—a maximum fine of £1,000—more accurately reflected the seriousness of the offence. The amendment tabled by Lord Campbell in another place was accepted without opposition. I hope that the House will also welcome it today. In view of that, I wonder whether my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North will consider withdrawing his amendment.

Ms. Jo Richardson: Like other hon. Members, I was not privileged to take part in earlier stages


of the Bill. Nevertheless, I am very interested in what is happening and what might happen when the Bill becomes law, as I hope it will. I very much welcome the Bill and applaud the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) for introducing it.
We are now considering the narrow point of the penalties. Having thought about this for some time, I think that level 3 at £400, is about right. All the talk about levels reminds me of a department store. One arrives at level 3 and then goes up to level 4. When my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) referred to Harrods, I really felt that I was in a department store—[Interruption.] I hope that I may continue my speech without this dialogue taking place on the Benches before me.
All the discussion this morning has concerned malicious communications which might come from stockbrokers or very well-off people. From my constituency experience, I believe that the majority of malicious communications come from poorer people. I am not knocking or defending those people.
I do not want to stray into too many generalities, but I want to refer to some examples. Very often poison-pen letters and malicious communications arise from neighbourhood problems involving feelings of harassment. For example, a person in one house may feel harassed and pressured by someone living next door or in the flat above. I am sure that I need not remind hon. Members on both sides of the House about this. They need only look in their post-bags or go to their surgeries this evening to find cases where people complain bitterly that they have come to the end of their tether because of the problems caused by a neighbour. I can see hon. Members nodding in agreement.
10.15 am.
We would hope that those problems would not normally result in a poison-pen letter of malicious communication, but it occasionally does. I have met constituents who are the persecuted and I have also met the persecutors. I have met people who have received malicious communications and poison-pen letters stemming from the difficulties and friction caused by neighbourhood problems.
We must watch out for another point when we are considering the level of fine. I do not want to see people driven to desperation by the problems that they face in their daily lives then subjected to a fine of £ 1,000 or £2,000.

Mr. Corbett: All hon. Members will recognise the description that my hon. Friend has given of what we will loosely describe as "neighbour" problems. My hon. Friend may be interested to know that Birmingham has established a pilot conciliation scheme with help from one of the universities to try to resolve the problems before they cause people to send abusive or poison-pen letters. Other local authorities might want to consider that scheme in due course.

Ms. Richardson: I am very grateful for that interesting point and I hope that we will consider it.
Many of the people to whom I am referring do not know where to go to make proper complaints. I need not remind hon. Members of the common phrase which constituents use in surgeries, "You are my last resort." My

heart always sinks when I hear that. I feel that they have been to everyone else and are now coming to me and I probably have no solution either.
People are not always aware of the fact that the persecutor may have a problem. They may not be aware that a reference to the social services department may be the best course of action. Or, if council tenants are involved, reference to the housing deparment might be the answer.
I believe that the penalty may be over-severe for another category. Some single men and women may be lonely and in some cases unable to go out very often. Those people may spend their time at the window looking up and down the road at their neighbours. They may not invent situations about neighbours, but they might see a young woman going out, temporarily leaving her children in the house. The person watching may think, "How terrible." That person may send a letter which might be construed as a malicious communication. That may sound far-fetched in the rather glorified atmosphere of stockbrokerage that we have just been talking about. However, it is much more the reality than the high-flown kind of malicious communication referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover in terms of his letters from Tiny Rowland.

Mr. Skinner: When Tiny Rowland writes to me, he is not sending me a malicious communication that would cause me anxiety and distress. I never read the letters thoroughly, but it seems to me that he is trying to cause anxiety and distress to the people who own Harrods, by suggesting that they do not really own it and that they got it by dodgy means. I am being used as the middle man in the exercise, and I know that other hon. Members get these letters in brown envelopes. Would that come within the general ambit of the Bill and, if so, would that alter my hon. Friend's view about the appropriate level of fine?
Then there is another consideration—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The first consideration was long enough.

Ms. Richardson: I have never had a communication from Tiny Rowland, or perhaps I have, but have thrown it away unopened. That is a slightly different scenario from the one that we are discussing.
I am worried about setting fine levels at £1,000 or £2,000 rather than £400, which was the level originally in the Bill. I am sure that the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) gave the matter a great deal of thought and took advice before fixing the fines at level 3, and did not merely pluck the figure out of the air. Even if the maximum is to be £1,000 or £2,000, there may be variations within those sums. We all know that different magistrates see cases in different ways, just as judges do. We know how the sentences given for rape vary. I am not straying from discussion of the Bill, Mr. Deputy Speaker; I am discussing the level of sentences. We are often outraged that a short sentence is given by one judge in a nasty case, whereas an appropriately long sentence is given in another case. There may be a similar unevenness in fines. The result will be that some poor old gentleman—not Tiny Rowland —or some poor old lady or young woman will be fined more than he or she can afford.
The hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight) was asked why we did not go the whole hog. I assure the Minister that no pun is intended, incidentally.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: Don't worry; I have heard it before.

Ms. Richardson: Am I not right in thinking that if a fine is not paid, a person has to go to prison?

Mr. Skinner: That was my other point. Has my hon. Friend considered the question of non-payment? We hear constantly that the prisons are full and that the number of prisoners is at an all-time record. The Prime Minister was elected on the basis of law and order, but the prisons are so full that prisoners are breaking out. The Prime Minister 'was going to set the people free, but the prisoners got out. If fines were set at level 5—£2,000—more people might be unable to pay. If they fell into contempt of court, they would be pushed into gaol and add to the numbers in prison. That is why I am still considering whether to support the original provision or the amendment. I wonder whether my hon. Friend can help me. In my case, the jury is still out.

Ms. Richardson: I have never been asked to help my hon. Friend before, because he always knows his own mind. It is a novel experience for me. He has made a serious point.

Mr. Greg Knight: Surely, the point is something of a red herring. If a defendant cannot meet a fine due to a change in circumstances, there is provision for the courts to review the weekly payment, and they invariably do so. Only if the defendant makes it quite clear to the court that he is not prepared to pay the fine or if his behavour is so perverse that he is putting other things—such as his own entertainment—before the payment of the fine, is he sent to prison. Prison is not really a threat to a person who makes a reasonable effort to discharge the fine imposed by the court.

Ms. Richardson: The hon. Gentleman does not live in the kind of world that I live in. I am not talking about stockbrokers or the well off. It is stupid and wrong to write a poison pen letter and to be caught and fined. However, the guilty person might be a pensioner or be receiving income support. He might be paying back other debts, such as bills for gas and electricity. Such people find it difficult to pay fines, with the best will in the world, and they end up in prison.
All hon. Members acknowledge that our prisons are overcrowded. One has only to look at Holloway, for example, where many women are on remand, often for petty offences such as shop-lifting and non-payment of fines.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: The hon. Lady mentioned Holloway. It is important to emphasise that Holloway is not overcrowded.

Ms. Richarson: It is true that I have not been to Holloway for a year or 14 months. When I spoke of it as being overcrowded, I did not mean that there were six persons to a cell. However, the constant complaint at Holloway, which often comes from the Prison Officers Association, is that there are too few prison officers to deal with the number of prisoners and there is a distinct feeling that many of the women who are there for non-payment of fines or similar offences should not be there at all. That point is linked to my argument. I mentioned Holloway because it is a London prison and I know something about

it. There are other prisons which are overcrowded and, even if Holloway is not technically overcrowded at the moment, it could become overcrowded.

Mr. Corbett: My hon. Friend is making an interesting point. The prison statistics for England and Wales for 1986 show that fine defaulters accounted for 22 per cent. of receptions under sentence, and that was 1 per cent. more than in the previous year. About 1·3 million men were fined in 1986—I do not have the figure for women.

Ms. Richardson: My hon. Friend has reinforced my argument. I am worried about the level of fines that could be imposed. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover said that he was waiting for the jury. I have made up my mind that £400 is the right amount. For that reason, I was disappointed to hear the hon. Member for Sherwood support the Lords amendment, because it sets fines too high. We should keep to the level of fines proposed by the Bill, at least for the time being, and see how that works. If the fines do not do the job that they are intended to do, it would be possible to increase them at a later stage.

Mr. Skinner: When I say that my jury is still out, it is because I am considering tactics. We have three choices: £400, £1,000, as proposed in the other place, and £2,000, as proposed by the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight). There are only two Lobbies in the House, the Aye Lobby and the No Lobby. I think that my hon. Friend is bordering on accepting the lower level of fine, just as I am. We may, however, finish up throwing out the baby with the bath water and having an even more censorious fine. We must consider not just our reasons for wanting the lower level but which way to vote to get the lowest possible level on offer.

Ms. Richardson: I do not know, although presumably I should, the fines imposed at levels 1 and 2.

Mr. Greg Knight: Level 1 is a fine of £50 and level 2 is a fine of £100.

Ms. Richardson: Those fines are too low. On the whole, £400 is right. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover has made a good point—we do not have three Lobbies. We shall probably end up deciding between a fine of £400, as originally in the Bill, and a fine of £1,000, unless the hon. Member for Derby, North pushes his amendment for a fine of £2,000. I have come to the conclusion—or talked or read myself to the conclusion—that the best idea is to stick to the £400 and see how we go. The measure is an innovation—one which we should all welcome and on which we should congratulate the hon. Member for Sherwood. We should not go over the top but should stick to the £400.

Mr. Skinner: As my hon. Friend has said, the level of fine has ebbed and flowed. When I am making up my mind, I have to consider which decision will least benefit the lawyers. I always do that whenever a vote is to be taken, especially when lawyers are involved. They have different levels as well. I want to know before I walk through the Lobby whether my decision will enable the lawyers to get a big fat bonus. Their level in this matter has not yet been disclosed. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will explain. The hon. Gentleman may well be able to argue that the legal payments are not a consideration, but


that point must weigh in my mind. I do not want to vote for a measure and then, a few years later, have someone say to me, "You walked through the Lobby, Skinner"—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is difficult to see how this point arises under the narrow amendment before the House.

Mr. Skinner: You are bound to say that, Sir, because you have a different job. You will not have to go through the Lobby. You will sit in the Chair and no one from Doncaster will come to see you in two or three years' time and ask, "What did you do, Harold, on the day in question when the House lined the pockets of the lawyers?" You will be able to dodge the column. My hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) and I will have to listen to all the complaints at our surgeries. Before we decide, I want to know whether this measure will fill the pockets of the lawyers, because there are many in this place.

Ms. Richardson: I take my hon. Friend's point. I am not a lawyer and I am always dropping dangers in terms of what lawyers think should be done. Should we not also consider the need to keep the fine low? I do not know where we stand on, for example, legal aid. A poor person who is up for prosecution and who goes to a lawyer will want legal aid. Will he be entitled to it?

Mr. Forth: Will the hon. Lady consider the point that the levels which we are discussing are maxima and judges will have the discretion to award fines up to those levels? Therefore, the hon. Lady's point about income levels, which I understand, could be catered for. I am sure that the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) agree that we want to ensure that effective fines can be applied to the wealthy while allowing the use of discretion to take account of people on lower incomes. If we follow the hon. Lady's recommendation, we may lose out on penalising the wealthy.

Ms. Richardson: The hon. Gentleman was momentarily out of the Chamber when I talked about the maximum.

Mr. Skinner: The hon. Gentleman referred to "maxima".

Mr. Forth: It is Latin for the plural of maximum.

Ms. Richardson: If there is a maximum, magistrates and judges have to decide what to impose. Sometimes they go for the jugular and impose the heaviest sentence. I am concerned about having a fine of £1,000 or £2,000 because it may result in poor people being penalised. I acknowledge that they should not have committed these acts. It is dreadful for anyone to send a poison pen letter, but we must take the circumstances into account. Magistrates and judges may be so annoyed and incensed by the offence that they go for the maximum penalty. I should like a more modest sentence, at least at the beginning. That would be the best way to proceed before we go down this new road.

Mr. Butler: I am attracted by the idea of the availability of higher fines because they would be a deterrent. We are aiming for deterrents, rather than punishments, to stop the offence. The availability of higher fines would provide

greater flexibility for magistrates in coping with the varying degrees of gravity of the offence. It would provide some headroom for inflation which, I am afraid, is still too high. Sometimes I wonder why we do not include in our legislation some power for the Secretaries of State to vary fines according to inflation. The availability of higher fines would be beneficial in dealing with persistent offenders. When these cases come before the courts, we shall find that there is a high number of such offenders.
In judging the level of fine to be applied to these offences, recognition should not be given to matters that blow up in the press. That is one reason why I am a little worried about the Criminal Justice Bill, which we have just passed, which allows reference to a higher court for sentences that seem too lenient. I fear that there may be trial in the press and reaction to that.
On Second Reading, I mentioned that I had worked at No. 10 and that Prime Ministers had received hate mail. I deliberately stressed the fact that Prime Ministers in the plural were affected, because Jim Callaghan and the present Prime Minister both received hate mail. From the way in which the incidents were sensationalised in the press, it seemed that such hate mail was peculiar to the present Prime Minister. My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) also referred on Second Reading to the responsibility of the press in reporting these matters. There is nothing peculiar about the present Prime Minister receiving hate mail. It is something intrinsic in being a public figure. We all receive hate mail.

Mr. Skinner: I receive hate mail.

Mrs. Butler: The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) receives hate mail.

Mr. Skinner: In relation to hate mail, I was trying to explain that Tiny Rowland has been hoping to use me as a vehicle to express certain views in the House. He is attacking the owners of Harrods because he thinks that they managed to purchase Harrods by some dodgy methods. He has been sending hate mail—it has not caused me anxiety and distress—deliberately to try to cause anxiety and distress for his enemies among the other Tories who were running Harrods. It was really an argument between Tories. That is the top and bottom of it. Would mail causing a third person anxiety and distress be described as hate mail? It has not caused me any worry at all.

Mr. Butler: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. My understanding was that Tiny Rowland was a supporter of the SDP, rather than a Tory. I, too, have received mail from Tiny Rowland.

Mr. Skinner: The hon. Gentleman is not suggesting for a minute that the SDP, which is now regarded as the provisional army led by the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), is anything other than a front for the Tory party which, as many people say to me, will eventually—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not see how this can possibly arise under this amendment.

Mr. Butler: The hon. Gentleman's point is probably dealt with by the libel laws. I have received such mail. I did not understand it and, to be quite frank, I thought that it was from somebody who was a little deranged. Many hon. Members present will have received hate mail. I suspect


that the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) also receives hate mail. It is a fact of public life. The right hon. Member for Islwyn is a nice chap, after all. He is a Welshman, so he must be a nice chap. My right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) also received a large amount of hate mail from old retired colonels. We in public life should not be too sensitive to such matters. They should be weighed up and judged in the courts.
When I stood in the Brecon and Radnor by-election, I received some hate mail by postcard. At the time, I wondered whether it came from the dirty tricks department of a certain party that I shall not mention. but the point about this—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. What has this to do with the level of penalties, which is what we are considering?

Mr. Butler: I shall refer to that matter, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The fact that such communications were in the form of postcards magnified the degree of mens rea, as they were read by people other than myself. That fact should be taken into account by the courts when deciding fines. For those reasons, we should have a fine higher than £400.

Mrs. Audrey Wise: My hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) spoke realistically about the Bill and the proposal on the level of penalties. I do not think that the Bill is about wealthy people. I do not say that the wealthy will not commit such crimes. I do not know many wealthy people, so I am not acquainted with their foibles. In general, I am prepared to believe that wealthy people are as likely as, or even more likely than, my associates and constituents to commit any crime. But in practice, wealthy people will not face such charges. If they do, they are unlikely to have to pay a fine, whether it be £400 or £2,000, because they employ their wealth in ways that make it much less likely that they will be found guilty. I support the £400 penalty not because I wish to be soft on wealthy people but because wealthy people are not likely to be fined.
The Bill is good. It should be a crime to send hate mail. I agree entirely with my hon. Friend the Member for Barking. It can be extremely distressing to receive such communications, and people should be protected. The Bill should be a disincentive to sending such mail and should demonstrate society's disapproval of such action. A £400 fine is adequate to do that. We would not be well advised to make the fine higher, because we would find ourselves on rather tricky ground. Although sending hate mail should be an offence, it does not involve the same seriousness as some other crimes from which we seek to protect people.
We would open the door to some invidious comparisons if, for instance, there were a £2,000 penalty for an offence under this Bill and a lighter penalty for a crime that most people think merits more severe treatment. We already have such problems. I am sure that I am not alone in collecting cuttings about idiosyncratic sentences imposed by judges and magistrates. Many such sentences are imposed for crimes against people or property. There is a bias. There are heavier sentences for crimes against property than those against people. I disapprove of that. Comparisons can and will be made. In our genuine zeal to

make it an offence to send hate mail, we do not want to give the impression that we underrate the seriousness of other offences.
The perfectly valid point has been made that the proposed fine is a maximum and that magistrates will not be compelled to impose a maximum fine. Anything that allows too much unevenness in sentencing for any offence tends to bring the law into some disrepute. We might think that magistrates employ perfect logic, look at a wealthy person, and say, "I am slamming the top penalty on you," and look at the poor, elderly person who, because of circumstances in his or her life, was driven to commit the offence, and say, "I shall impose a small fine." But magistrates do not work like that. There is much more randomness in sentencing. On occasions, there is a tendency for some judges or magistrates to impose exemplary sentences. They look at the circumstances of the case and decide not only whether someone should be punished or discouraged but whether a whole class of people are to be more strongly discouraged. That always worries me.
The punishment should fit the crime and not allow people to ride their hobby horses. The person who imposes the penalty might have been a victim of such a crime. He may not have reported it, but it might have rankled with him. That can add to idiosyncratic imposition of sentences.
In a sense, this legislation is an experiment to see whether the incidence of such offences can be reduced. The purpose should be prevention rather than punishment. A person receiving such communications is not greatly protected by the fact that the person responsible is brought to court and punished. In fact, the distress may be cumulative if court proceedings result, and further problems could arise in the neighbourhood bringing more trouble for both parties in the future. In a sense, if cases come to court the legislation will have failed. The preventive nature of the legislation must be stressed at all times.
I believe that at this stage a fine of £400 is sufficient to make it clear that society and Parliament disapprove of the offence. Magistrates would not have such a problem in fixing appropriate sentences.

Mr. Skinner: I have listened carefully to my hon. Friend and it is clear that she wants the lowest possible level of fine. Her comments suggest that she is leaning towards an even lower level than £400. She is really saying that she does not want a serious fine at all. As she has spoken in that vein, would it not have been better to put down an amendment specifying an even lower level? I think that that is what is really running through my hon. Friend's mind.

Mrs. Wise: My hon. Friend is wrong. Had my thoughts been in that direction, I should not have hesitated to put down an amendment. There should be some flexibility. A simple £50 fine, for example, would not be a sufficient mark of disapproval. We must fix a penalty which shows that we seriously disapprove of the offence. For most people, £400 is still a substantial sum. If it were generally known that such offences could draw penalties of that amount, most people would regard that as a mark of serious disapproval and discouragement. My hon. Friend is therefore wrong, although I am glad that he has been


listening carefully to my remarks. I wondered why he was so silent. Clearly, he was thinking hard about what I was saying.

Mr. Skinner: I was listening hard because my hon. Friend seemed to have failed to appreciate the attitude of rich people—those with the brass, such as Tiny Rowland whose letters have been causing anxiety and distress to people at Harrods. Let us consider the matter from the other end. Those rich people can afford to employ the best lawyers in the land, or at least the most expensive ones —I do not know whether they are any better, as to me they are all pretty much in the same bag.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: There are good ones and bad ones.

Mr. Skinner: Rich offenders might impress the magistrates by employing a lawyer called Sir Humphrey Jackson-hyphen-Smith or, to get down to brass tacks, someone called Napley—who costs £400 per hour—and the chances are that they would get away with it. My hon. Friend seems not to appreciate that £400 is chickenfeed for such people. They can take it off the ribs of the next batch of employees at their factory or wherever in a couple of minutes.

Mrs. Wise: With all due respect, my hon. Friend makes my point for me. Whatever the fine is, those people will not pay it because they can afford to spend a lot of money on their defence and will thus not be found guilty. For such people, the level of fine is irrelevant because they will employ expensive defence lawyers to avoid having a conviction on their record or reported in the newspapers. Whether the fine was £400, £1,000 or £2,000, they would take all possible steps not to be found guilty, whether or not they were actually guilty. As they would not be called on to pay the fine, it would not matter to them if it was £2,000, but it would matter a great deal to the people mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Barking. If a magistrate fails to apply the logic that we expect, a fine of that magnitude could be a disaster.
People should be punished for such offences—I make no bones about that—and I strongly disapprove of such activities. That is why I support the original intention of the Bill. Nevertheless, we do not want offenders to be driven to desperation. For ordinary people who may already be a bit unhinged, as they probably would be to have sent such letters in the first place, a fine of £2,000 could make them suicidal or drive them to commit other offences to get the money to pay the fine. A ridiculous spiral would be created.
Therefore, if the opportunity arises I shall vote in favour of a maximum fine of £400. That will give ample discretion to magistrates. I do not believe that there is any minimum laid down, so the magistrate would have full discretion to impose a fine up to the maximum of £400. I believe that that level is ample. It shows Parliament's disapproval and I believe that it would be a genuine discouragement to people contemplating such offences, assuming that they are acting rationally. If they are not rational, they will not be dissuaded, whatever the level of fine.
Finally, as with all crime, the biggest disincentive is the knowledge that the person may be found out. That is the most important factor. I congratulate the hon. Member

for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) on bringing in the Bill. I should not like it to be spoilt or its emphasis unduly altered by the imposition of too heavy a penalty.

Mrs. Gorman: I support the good, common-sense points made by the hon. Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson). I, too, believe that in this instance justice should be tempered with mercy. The levels of fine originally laid down in the Bill probably make more sense than allowing magistrates to whack on very heavy fines on the ground that it is the rich we want to catch. It is unfortunate how often the nasty, envious side of human nature comes out when we discuss such matters, not least in some of the rather malicious remarks of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who constantly pillories a gentleman in the City who cannot come to the House to defend himself but has to put up with such maliciousness and cannot take the hon. Gentleman to court for it.
There are many instances of malicious communications. Last week, I received quite a number of letters which most people would regard as offensive, mainly from people who could not get tickets for Wimbledon. I believe that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) wrote such a letter to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. That communication, which travelled from this place by Her Majesty's letter post, asked my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to carry out certain acts in relation to me and my status in the Conservative party which I considered to be a threat. Although I think that the right hon. Gentleman was wrong and that his action was ungentlemanly, I should not like to see him taken to court and fined at level 4 or 5. If he had gone over the top, I would be happy for him to be fined at level 3, which about fits in with the amount of money that a Member of Parliament can afford.

11 am

Mr. Corbett: I assure the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) that my right hon. Friend meant no threat. I can think of no occasion on which he has behaved in other than a gentlemanly fashion. The fact of the matter is that he disagreed profoundly with the hon. Lady's comment.

Mrs. Gorman: In my understanding of what was said by the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook, from my reading of the Hansard report of last Friday's proceedings, he tore into me strongly and used what I consider to be false information in his allegations about me. However, we know that anything said in this Chamber is protected by privilege, and that is why the hon. Member for Bolsover gets away with saying so many unpleasant things about a certain gentleman in the City who cannot be here to defend himself.

Mr. Skinner: Whatever I say in the House, I am prepared to repeat outside it. Unlike some hon. Members, I do not make use of the privilege that is there for hon. Members to use. The letter I received from Tiny Rowland attacking Harrods has been printed in The Observer, because I believe that he just about owns that newspaper as well. The hon. Lady should not get upset about that. The letters that Tiny Rowland is sending out, causing anxiety and distress to Harrods, are being printed in newspapers week after week.
The hon. Lady should not assume that I am not prepared to repeat outside anything that I say in this Chamber. I do not know anything about the correspondence between my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) and the hon. Lady. I only know that recently she has been causing anxiety and distress to people trying to get into Wimbledon, but who cannot do so, because she supports the touts who sell tickets at 10 or 20 times over the odds. I am not sure whether that activity falls within the Bill's general ambit but it has caused distress to many people.

Mrs. Gorman: On a point of information, if the hon. Member for Bolsover wishes to enter into a debate about Wimbledon, perhaps we may have a private discussion about the level of the ticket mark-up. However, I shall not touch on that subject now, because Mr. Deputy Speaker would rule me out of order. He brings me to order, quite rightly, fairly often, when I ramble off the point. I hope that he will adopt the same attitude to the hon. Member for Bolsover, who frequently rambles off the point.

Mr. Greg Knight: Does my hon. Friend agree on reflection that she has destroyed her own case? She stated that a fine of £400 is sufficient, and she gave as an illustration a letter sent by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). However, because that right hon. Gentleman—to use the phrase of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)—moonlights by writing columns for glossy magazines, he is a very wealthy man and a fine of £400 would be nothing to him.

Mrs. Gorman: I take my hon. Friend's point but I do not wish to be malicious towards the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook; he has his point of view and I have mine.
There may be occasions when people write letters that are construed to be of a malicious nature, when they really are only expressing concern. The hon. Member for Barking pointed out that many humble people spend much of their lives peeping through their curtains at what the neighbours are getting up to, and that they might see comings and goings at a house causing them to wonder whether children were being neglected. In some cases, they could be right. They may not write a letter to the parent but to the NSPCC. Although we may laugh at such people and question whether they have nothing better to do with their time, they are in many ways the eyes and ears of our streets. There has been a breakdown of our traditional housing, when we lived in rows of houses and could watch the street. After we tore down all those nice neighbourhoods and replaced them with ghastly tower blocks of flats, people could not watch the streets and we began to see the breakdown—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I fail to see how that has anything to do with the amendment. The hon. Lady should return to the subject of penalty levels.

Mrs. Gorman: I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for your remarks.
People may write letters with good motivation, although their action may be construed as being malicious. Such reporting is sometimes very helpful and we should not discourage people from taking that action. If they err, a modest fine would be more appropriate. I should not like magistrates to be given the power to go over the top. We

all of us make mistakes some time, be it the police or people peeking through windows. I would not want people to be put off entirely from keeping an eye on things.
The hon. Member for Barking spoke also about disputes between neighbours and the fines they involve. I have had the experience of living next door to someone who was driving me crazy. She was a breeder of scottie dogs, which seemed to multiply in the garden like mushrooms. Sometimes there would be as many as 40 puppies barking and yapping in the garden. Because they were not well fed, they pushed their dinner dishes round and round the concrete, making awful scraping noises and barking. That used to drive me to distraction.
Eventually, my husband was driven to the point of sitting down and writing a letter to the woman, saying, "The next time I am out in my garden digging the flower beds, if your dogs are out there driving me crazy, I shall spike one of them on my garden fork." He did not mean any harm. In normal circumstances, and given one dog at a time, he loves animals—but he could have been driven beyond the point of self-control. Had he been, and gone before a magistrate who was a dog lover to destruction—as some magistrates may be—he could have been fined an inordinate sum of money. I believe that we should retain a sense of proportion by keeping fines down to a relatively modest level, and give them a try on those lines.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I can see how the question of those adjacent dogs could be a matter of grave concern, especially as my hon. Friend's husband might be thinking of writing again in similar terms. In the context of fine levels, I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the statutory defence existing in subsection (2), which I feel sure her husband will wish to adopt if he is subsequently prosecuted for writing the kind of letter that is apparently commonplace for him to write.

Mrs. Gorman: I thank my hon. Friend for his learned and wise intervention and good advice. I may say that all that happened some years ago and that we subsequently moved. Nevertheless, it is a good idea to put before the House concrete examples of the circumstances in which our laws are meant to operate, so that we do not legislate in a vacuum. I support absolutely the points made by the hon. Member for Barking, whose common sense and practical experience of life so often contribute useful points to our debates.

Mrs. Corbett: First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) on the safe return of his Bill from the other place. I share his apprehension as the minutes tick by, and I do not intend to detain the House too long.
In considering the appropriate maximum fine for those convicted under the Bill, we should remember that the intent of the sender is at the heart of the legislation. The sender must want to cause distress and anxiety. Someone in Worcester wrote to me complaining that it was typical of the Tories to bring in a Bill to prevent those who oppose the Government's policies in robust terms from writing to Ministers and other Conservartive Members. Of course, I have already assured him—and no doubt the Bill's promoter will do the same—that such letters are outside the scope of the Bill. Let me say in passing, however, that I hope that supporters of the present Administration get lots of them.
In our last debate, the Minister explained why he felt that the Law Commission's recommendation about the


level of fines should not be supported, and I very much agree with what he said then. It is important that, as well as attempting to set similar fines for similar offences, we should consider who are likely to be convicted, and there ability to pay. Diane Simpson, a leading graphologist who dealt with about 1,000 poison pen letters last year, says that writers of such letters come from all age groups and both sexes, which relates to what some of my hon. Friends have said. That does not help us much, although she adds that the famous are more likely to receive hate mail sent with malicious intent from strangers. That could apply to actresses, television presenters and so on. Other people, she says, receive such letters from so-called friends and colleagues.
All that Diane Simpson can tell us is that the profile of the typical poison pen writer has changed. She told The Times on 10 February this year:
Ten years ago, they were invariably women—often, I am sorry to say, some poor woman going through the menopause in a village somewhere.
Although she said that the writers came from all age groups and both sexes, like my hon. Friends I doubt that there is an equal spread over income groups. I suspect that the pressures and frustrations that lead some people to write those letters are felt much more strongly at the lower end of the income scale.
We have decided—rightly in my view—that prison is no answer for writers of poison pen letters, who are invaribly sad, often lonely and at odds with their world because of real or perceived hurt from others. But there is no point in pitching the fine at a level which, on conviction, is likely in many cases to ensure that the person ends up in gaol anyway through fine default. That is why I strongly oppose the suggestion that a £2,000 fine would be appropriate.

Mr. Greg Knight: May I put two points to the hon. Gentleman? First, should we not be careful not to place too much reliance on so-called statistical evidence? Because the law currently makes no provision for poison pen letters, any such evidence must relate only to reported cases. We do not know, for example, how many letters have been sent whose recipients have been caused anxiety and distress but have not reported the matter.
Secondly, as was pointed out earlier, the Bill does not require a minimum sentence from the courts. All that I have sought to do, and the other place has done, is to give the courts a wider range of discretion within which to pitch the penalty as they deem appropriate in individual cases.

Mr. Corbett: I understand exactly what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Because there has not been a specific offence before, the evidence that we have brought to our debates has had to be anecdotal and largely taken from our advice bureaux. I also take the point that the level at which the fine is set will be the maximum, and that there is no minimum. I shall come to that in a minute.
11.15 am.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise), I am not a great believer in the theory of deterrence. I do not think that there is any real evidence that the length of sentence or level of fine deters, especially in cases of this kind. Evidence suggests that a person's judgment is more likely to be on the likelihood of being caught, which weighs

more heavily on someone contemplating breaking the law. I doubt whether that would cross the minds of poison pen writers in any event.
Diane Simpson, the graphologist, offers some hope and support for the Bill. She said in an interview in The Times that it was often surprisingly easy to track down anonymous letter writers:
All anonymous letter writers have two things in common: the first being that they are all cowards; the second that they are would-be manipulators of other people's behaviour.
If, given an alarming reported rise in the incidence of poison pen letters, it is surprisingly easy to track many of them down, the level of fine on conviction is a matter of real interest. Too many people now go to gaol for non-payment of fines. We do not know, but I suspect that in many cases that is due not to unwillingness to pay but to inability to pay, whatever the court may do before the prison gates open to reduce, say, the rate at which a fine is paid off over a number of weeks.
Perversely, the fine will often bite hardest on the least well-off who are caught and convicted, almost irrespective of its level. Of course, a fine of £1,000 or £2,000 imposed on someone pushed into deception by poverty bites a good deal harder than a fine of 100 times that amount imposed on some city slicker who is caught with his hand in someone else's till. I am thinking especially of those convicted of fraud against the DHSS.
According to the prison statistics for England and Wales, fine defaulters accounted for some 22 per cent. of all receptions under sentence in 1986. The proportion of those aged between 17 and 20 who were sent to prison for non-payment of fines between 1976 and 1986 almost doubled, from 14 per cent. to 25 per cent., and over the same 10 years the proportion of those aged between 21 and 29 sent to prison rose from 37 per cent. to 45 per cent. In 1986, 1,100 females were sent to prison for non-payment of fines. It is fair to point out, however, that imprisonment for fine defaulters is not at the peak that it reached a few years ago.
Having turned our backs on imprisonment as an option for the magistrates, we should not, by setting the level of fine too high, make it more likely that people convicted under the Bill will find themselves in prison. I have said that I do not believe that a level 5 maximum fine of £2,000 would be appropriate. I am not sure that the level 4 maximum fine of £1,000 is appropriate. I acknowledge that part of the responsibility of magistrates is to inflict punishment, but by no means do I put a full stop after that word. Especially in these cases, punishing people by way of a fairly hefty fine in relation to their means and ability to pay, or by imprisonment, does not solve the underlying problems of people who feel that they have to write such letters. I hope that at the very least the House will not agree with the amendment.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: The House in general welcomes the Bill. I wish to extend to my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) the congratulations of the House on having introduced the Bill. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight) for having provoked an unexpectedly spirited and interesting debate.
My general view is that the House should accept the Lords amendment, and should adopt a scale 4 penalty rather than a scale 5 penalty, and I commend that view to the House.
It may be of assistance to the House when determining the appropriate scale if I explain briefly the purpose of the Bill. The Bill is designed to deal with a serious problem which was identified and described in detail in the Law Commission report of 1985. I must remind the hon. Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson)—I shall refer to her speech later—that the Law Commission recommended a scale 5 penalty for the offence encompassed within the Bill. That is a mark of the seriousness which the Law Commission attached to the offences.
The offences deal with hate mail, but they also deal with another class of offence which has not been mentioned in the debate—that associated with racial persecution. The hon. Lady will be well aware that many members of the ethnic minorities have been the subject of campaigns. Those campaigns can take at least two forms: first, letters of a highly offensive kind through the letter box, and secondly such nasty things as dog shit through the letter box. That is a serious matter, especially if it is a concerted campaign. I must stress to those hon. Members who focused on the desirability of adhering to a scale 3 fine, that sometimes we are dealing with a particularly nasty offence with racial overtones, committed over a period, against which we should react fairly vigorously.

Ms. Richardson: The Minister is convincing me. He has made an excellent point in raising the question of racial violence via malicious letters. We could all point to examples of that. He also mentioned things other than letters going through the letter box. Would lighted objects coming through the letter box be covered by the offence of arson, or would they be considered malicious communication?

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Lady has in mind bits of paper, petrol, or rags which have been set alight and which cause fires. Those are covered by the ordinary laws which deal with arson or malicious damage. We are dealing exclusively with mail and other objects which are sent with the purposes set out in the Bill. For those purposes, the word "sent" is apt to include putting something through a letter box, and not necessarily posting it through the mail. The Bill deals exclusively with objects posted through the letter box with the intention set out in the Bill.

Mrs. Wise: I am in an odd position, because I, too, wish to thank the Minister for raising a matter which had not occurred to me—the possibility of such actions being part of a campaign, perhaps for racial reasons. I had not taken that into account. Clearly, with the broader knowledge to which the Minister has access, he is destroying part of the case that we made.

Mr. Hogg: That is unusually gracious of the hon. Lady. She has put me into some difficulty, as I was going to refer to her speech and I had it in mind to make some very unflattering comments about her. However, she has been so gracious that I will have to redesign my speech; otherwise, I shall be profoundly embarrassed.

Mr. Greg Knight: I wonder whether my hon. Friend can clarify a matter for the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Butler) may have misled the House unwittingly when he said that he favoured a higher penalty, as he considered it an inflation-proofing measure. Will the Minister confirm that

provisions already exist whereby the Government can increase fines by statutory instrument to take account of inflation?

Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North is entirely correct. I was going to deal with that when referring to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Butler). The fine attached to any scale can be raised by statutory instrument. That is how the Government can deal with the serious problem that my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, South identified.

Mr. Graham Allen: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman has not participated in the debate; nonetheless, I am feeling charitable.

Mr. Allen: I have listened carefully to much of the debate; I do not know whether the Minister regards that as participating. Perhaps I should have made a lengthy intervention, and perhaps later this morning I shall take the opportunity to do so.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman would not have been allowed to make a lengthy intervention, and I hope that he will not do so now.

Mr. Allen: By pure chance, this morning I received a letter from a constituent who has received unsolicited through his letter box something called, "Just Truth", which is, "A nationalist review of policy affecting British People", price lop. It was the winter 1987 edition, so clearly it did not sell very well as it was shoved unsolicited through the letter boxes in my constituency. It includes references to the holocaust of 6 million Jews being an error of fact, it refers to the ethnic composition of police recruitment and training, and contains various other disparaging remarks. Would such an item be caught under the provisions of the Malicious Communications Bill? If so, what action would arise from that?

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman has drawn attention to the fact that he has been in the Chamber for most of the debate. Although the hon. Gentleman is eminently forgettable, wearing what he does today, he is also eminently visible. In fact, he has not been in the Chamber for the greater part of the debate. The debate has been going on for nearly two hours and the hon. Gentleman's presence has been extremely limited. Were it otherwise, we should have spotted him because he is dressed in such an obvious way.

Mr. Allen: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. With the greatest respect to the Chair, and to the Minister—with great respect to one, and less to the other—I have been here for the majority of the debate so far. I should like to place that on record and graciously to accept the Minister's comments regarding my attire.

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman is making the point I have already made, which is that he is eminently forgettable. I do not think that we can carry the matter much further. It is for the House to judge whether he has been present; I am confident that he has not.
The hon. Gentleman asked for my advice, and that is flattering. He asked whether the document would fall


within the scope of the Bill. I cannot tell him the answer until I look at the document, but if he wants my professional advice, he can show it to me afterwards and I shall give it to him.
We have identified the fact —it is common ground—that the Bill is designed to deal with a serious problem, which can be concerted and can have a broad base. It is not sufficiently addressed by statute at present. Therefore, we can proceed on the basis that this is an important Bill designed to address a serious social mischief.
The question that arises is the level of fine—whether we should proceed on the basis of a scale 3, scale 4, or scale 5 fine. Several hon. Members have said that penalties must bear a relationship one with the other and that it would be wrong for our disapproval of one particular offence, such as that with which we are dealing, to drive us to put it into a scale of fine that is disproportionate to the scales of fines attached to other offences.
The offences with which we are dealing are dealt with summarily. The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) asked whether there should be a penalty over and above scale 5. Generally speaking, the maximum penalty that can be awarded by a justice is a scale 5 penalty. There are exceptional cases in which justices can impose a more substantial financial penalty, but that is unusual. We could provide for a higher level of financial penalty only if we were to provide that this class of offence should be dealt with on indictment. For reasons that I hope the hon. Member for Caernarfon will accept, it is undesirable that this class of offence should be dealt with by a jury. It is pre-eminently the type of offence that should be dealt with by justices and, accordingly, we could not attach to it a penalty in excess of scale 5.

Mr. Wigley: What I had in mind was repeated offences. Can the Minister tell whether repeated offences, if they are seriously malicious or with racial undertones, such as those mentioned, can be taken further, perhaps under other legislation, to ensure that they are duly dealt with?

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman has raised an important point and I can give him only an off-the-cuff reply. There are other statutes that touch on such conduct. Criminal libel could be invoked in some circumstances. Moreover, some statutes dealing with race relations might be appropriate and some of the communications might fall foul of the Public Order Act 1986. That is an off-the-cuff reply, and I do not guarantee that it is correct. However, I am certain that other legislation could in some circumstances be applied to such offences.
My judgment is that scale 4 is correct. Scale 5 is attached to those classes of offence involving violence or serious danger to public health. Scale 5 is the maximum that a justice can award, and it would be wrong to put this offence into that class. As a matter of general principle, measuring offence against offence, I strongly recommend that scale 4 is appropriate and not scale 5.
The hon. Member for Barking voiced a number of anxieties and I entirely understand her concern. However, we are dealing only with maxima, not with mandatory sentences. The hon. Lady is understandably concerned about the risk of people being sent to prison in default of payment. The point she raised was responded to fully by my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North in an

intervention. There are considerable statutory restrictions on the ability of a court to send someone to prison for non-payment of a fine. As a general rule, people will go to prison for non-payment of a fine only if the court has found as fact that they are able to pay and that the failure to pay is persistent and wilful. I have always taken the view that there is a need to have the penalty of imprisonment as a final sanction for those guilty of wilful or persistent non-payment of fines.
The hon. Member for Barking made a specific point about Holloway. I shall deal with that briefly, because you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would pull me up short if I went on at any length. It is wrong to suppose that Holloway is overcrowded. The population is much the same as the certified normal accommodation. It is also wrong to suppose that Holloway is understaffed, because it is not. The hon. Lady is right to say that the courts must address a person's ability to pay when imposing a fine. I hope that the courts will make a careful inquiry into means when determining a persons's ability to pay a fine in the context of the Bill we are discussing, and in the context of other offences.

Ms. Richardson: I want to refer to my point about Holloway being understaffed. I appeal to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to let me make this point. Theoretically, Holloway is probably not understaffed, but my information from people at Holloway has always been that because Holloway contains so many remand prisoners, there are always many prison officers out of the prison taking people to hospital or court and that the staff remaining in the prison find themselves overstretched. Every governor I have ever seen at Holloway has said that more staff would be helpful for the atmosphere in the prison.

Mr. Hogg: I will be careful not to go too far down this road, because, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you would call me to order. The hon. Lady will appreciate that we are implementing Fresh Start throughout the country and it is in place in Holloway. In my opinion, Holloway is properly staffed and we are attempting to make the most efficient use of staffing. I am afraid that I do not agree with the hon. Lady's point on Holloway, but I am glad to say that I am able to agree that the ability to pay fines should be a factor of which the courts should take account when determining the level of fine to be imposed.
I am sorry that we do not currently have the pleasure of the presence of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). He has made a useful contribution to the debate, in that he has made many interventions, all of them entertaining, but has not made a speech. I regret that, because I would have liked to hear his considered view. I seem to recall that we had a hung jury. The hon. Member for Bolsover was not certain which way his mind should go, and I am still uncertain which way it has gone, except that he has gone.
The hon. Member for Bolsover was deeply concerned that the choice he might have to make might have resource implications, by which he meant that if we adopt a level 4 fine, it might mean more barristers being paid more money. That is a serious point for the House to address. If there is a higher scale of penalty, it is just possible that a defendant might be tempted to instruct counsel when otherwise he might not. Therefore, theoretically, there could be resource implications. Having given this matter


extremely careful thought—I regret that the hon. Gentleman is not present to hear my response—my concluded view, for which in other circumstances I would charge a substantial fee, is that it is unlikely that increasing the scale from 3 to 4 would have significant resource implications for the Government or private individuals.
Government and Parliament can uprate penalties and fines to reflect changes in the value of money by statutory instrument, the primary legislation being the Criminal Justice Act 1982.
My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, South made an important point about public figures receiving hate mail and said that that should be a factor in the scale of penalty imposed. It is inevitable that public figures will receive hate mail. I have known my father for 40 years or so—[interruption] I thought that I had better leave a little margin for error. During that time, my father has received much hate mail. I have received a modest amount myself, which will not be surprising to anyone who knows me. Public figures must put up with hate mail; that is life. We do not have to put up with offensive letters about ourselves being sent to other people. That is a different point and is largely covered by the libel laws, although in certain circumstances it could fall foul of the Bill. I say to public figures who are worried about hate mail that the wastepaper basket is a splendid solution to the problem.
My hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) made, as I would expect of her, several idiosyncratic points. I found myself thinking of the statutory defence provided in clause 1(2) of the Bill. I originally had it in mind to refer her to that statutory defence in the context of the remarks that she made about the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). It occurred to me that in urging my hon. Friend's dismissal—a wicked and wrong thing for him to do, which we would greatly deplore if it happened—the right hon. Gentleman could rely on the statutory defence in clause 1(2) that he was making
a demand which he believed he had reasonable grounds for making; and that he believed that the use of the threat was a proper means of reinforcing the demand.
I expect that the right hon. Gentleman, who is a barrack-room lawyer if ever there were one, would invoke that provision.
To my surprise, I found that I might have to refer the statutory defence to my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay in the context of her husband. If he continues to write such letters to her neighbour, he may be in danger of prosecution.

Mrs. Gorman: I should not like my hon. Friend to think that my husband put that letter through next door's letterbox. He was driven to the point of sitting down one evening and composing the letter. I thought that it would be of interest to bring it to my hon. Friend's attention so that he could understand the provocation to which some people are subject.

Mr. Hogg: I understand that point, but if her husband had it in mind not to put it through next door's letterbox but to fold it into a dart and throw it over the wall it would still be "sending" according to the provisions of the Bill. My hon. Friend's husband had better be careful. If not, there are many hon. and learned Members who will look after his interests, should it prove necessary.
I have made some notes about the hon. Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise), but I have reservations about

uttering them following her very gracious speech. I have noted, for example, "extraordinary display of class prejudice", "unhelpful contribution" and "suitability to be chosen as deputy leader of the Labour party". I gather that she was a candidate for the deputy leadership at one stage. Those were the sort of remarks that I intended to make, but she has been so gracious that it would be jolly unfair to make them. I do not make them in any spirit of criticism.
I should tell the hon. Member for Preston that we a re talking about maximum, not mandatory, sentences. It is for the court to decide the fine according to the level of culpability. It is desirable that there should be a maximum that permits a severe fine in cases where there is a high degree of criminal culpability. The hon. Lady will agree that if a concerted racial attack were made on a group of Indians in her constituency, a substantial fine would be appropriate. For that reason, perhaps she will accept that scale 3 might be too modest.
This has been an important debate. I feel that I have trespassed on your patience, Mr. Deputy Speaker, although I do not think that I have been significantly out of order. For the reasons that I have given, I strongly commend the House to accept the Lords amendment but not the amendment to it urged eloquently by my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North. If he were minded to withdraw his amendment, it might be a course of action acceptable to the House.

Mr. Greg Knight: The consensus that earlier settled on the House has been shaken, but I hope not shattered, by the lively debate that we have had.
I want to reply to some of the points that have been made. The hon. Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) urged us to accept level 3. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister has put her mind at rest about many of the points that she made. As I said in an earlier intervention, the Bill provides not for minimum sentences but the level within which the courts operate. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Lady will accept the need to increase the level from £400.
I understand why the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) could not stay until the end of the debate. We are in the middle of the blood sports season and I assume that he has left to take part in the Socialist ritual of knife-throwing—usually in the back of their leader. Before he left he said that in some cases £400 would be chicken feed. I take that to be about as much support as I will receive from the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Forth (Mid-Worcestershire): It will be difficult for the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) to throw knives at his leader because he has departed for far-away parts and will be away for some time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight) said that he wanted to reply to some of the points that have been made. I hope that he will stick to that.

Mr. Knight: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point.
The hon. Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise) said that the Bill should be a disincentive to crime. The hon. Lady and I agree on our aims but disagree on our conclusions. Following the points made by my hon. Friend the Minister, I hope that she has revised her views.

Mrs. Wise: In view of the points that have been made about sustained campaigns, whether they be connected with racial matters or not, I have changed my mind. I had been considering the Bill only in the context of individuals. I should not like people to start invoking conspiracy laws, as I disapprove of them. It is better to provide for a heavier penalty than I had first thought suitable.

Mr. Knight: In case some hon. Members have doubts about the wisdom of increasing fines, I refer them to a case that took place in 1982 against a man called Penketh. He heard a widow broadcast for a pen pal. He wrote to the widow and out of kindness she replied to him. He began to bombard her with letters but she decided that she did not want to hear from him further. He wrote to that lady's son's headmaster saying that he was the natural father of her child, which caused her much distress. He was arrested and charged with criminal libel. He was placed on probation but continued to contact and pester her. When the matter was reviewed on appeal he was sentenced to nine months' imprisonment. The courts may need in certain cases, so that the sentence is a proper deterrent, to impose a fairly heavy fine or imprisonment. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Preston for acknowledging that there are cases in which a £400 fine would be inadequate.
When my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) referred to dogs being spiked, I thought that she was waiting to speak in the later debate on the Protection of Animals (Amendment) Bill. I hope that her comments will not alienate the animal welfare voters in her constituency.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) said that he was worried about defendants having to go to gaol because they were fine defaulters. That is why he argued that the penalty should still be £400. The courts do not have an unfettered right to send fine defaulters to gaol. If payment of a fine is in arrears, the matter is normally reviewed. Only when the offender persistently and wilfully refuses to pay the fine is he or she sent to prison. On reflection, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that that point should not be a real cause for concern.
The hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) may by all means send to me the communication that his constituent has received. All I ask is that he does not put his jumper in the post because that would cause me distress and anxiety. My hon. Friend the Minister accepted that there could be cases in which a Member of Parliament would be able to plead the statutory defence. I am grateful to him for his acceptance of that point.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) said that he has approached this matter with an open mind and that he is willing to give ground and accept that we should move up to level 4. I was in the Chamber a few weeks ago when my hon. Friend the Minister replied to another debate and said that if he could reach agreement he liked to do so. In the same spirit, on reflection I am prepared to accept the little ground that has been given. If we cannot have level 5, level 4 is perhaps the next best thing. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lords amendment No. 1 agreed to.

Access to Medical Reports Bill

Lords amendments considered.

Clause 1

RIGHT OF ACCESS

Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 1, line 5, leave out
Subject to the provisions of this Act

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 22, 24, and 26 to 30.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
I had the privilege to sponsor this Bill and I am pleased that we have now arrived at the final stage of its passage through Parliament. At every stage it has grown a bit, like Topsy. As the parliamentary process continued, it seemed inexorably to grow larger and larger. The Bill had a formal Second Reading and a short Committee and Report stage. Then it went to the other place where it was considered briefly but nevertheless in detail. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to my noble Friend Lord Tordoff for his patience, application and procedural skill when piloting the Bill through the other place.
The purpose of the Bill is to allow individuals access to medical reports that are made about them by their general practitioners when they apply for insurance policies or jobs. The new statutory rights are not revolutionary but they are important and significant. The Bill will not increase the administrative or bureaucratic procedures that employers or insurance companies will have to face, but it will give important rights to individuals and will correct wrongs. The detailed work that I carried out when preparing for this measure suggested to me that serious inaccuracies find their way on to medical files, that they follow people from the cradle to the grave and that they can be prejudicial when they apply for insurance policies or jobs.
Before the Bill left the House for the other place the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security, the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) was kind enough, if that is the right way to put it, to say that she would arrange for parliamentary counsel to check that there were no technical deficiencies in the drafting of the Bill. Daunting as they may seem, the amendments are largely the result of that scrutiny.
I am pleased to say that the overwhelming majority of the amendments are designed to improve the language and structure of the Bill. Changes to the substance of the Bill are limited. Amendments Nos. 1 to 4 are to clause I. In the original Bill, clause 1 provided for a new right of access. Amendments Nos. 1 to 4 are purely drafting amendments. The bar on retrospective access is removed from clause 1 and is relocated elsewhere.
There are some changes to clause 2, the interpretation clause. Amendment No. 5 provides for a new term, "the applicant". That is a legal generic term covering the person or company who seeks the medical report—the employer or the insurance company. It enables the drafting of subsequent parts of the Bill to be that much tidier.
Amendment No. 6 is purely technical. Amendment No. 7 makes it clear that only medical reports produced by the doctor who is or who has been responsible for the patient's medical treatment are covered by the Bill. There was doubt about whether the Bill, as originally drafted, embraced other medical reports. I wish to make it clear that it does not. A report by an insurance company doctor who has never treated the individual and who is merely examining somebody on behalf of the insurer would not be covered. When the Bill was discussed here I said that it had always been my intention to make that clear distinction.
Amendment No. 8 widens the definition of "employment purposes." It gives a right of access to the self-employed who are providing their services under contract. That was always the intention of the Bill, as originally drafted, it did not make that clear.
Amendments Nos. 9 to 13 are technical in nature and merit no further discussion. Amendment No. 14 deals with an interesting and slightly arcane point that was identified in the other place. If a general practitioner, when preparing a report for an employer, believes that it is necessary to consult another doctor for a second opinion —for example, a consultant who is responsible for the patient's hospital care—I do not expect the general practitioner to have to write again to the patient informing him of his right of access because a second doctor is being consulted. As the Bill was originally drafted, the general practitioner might have had to do that so that he could be said to be beyond reproach. The amendment makes it clear that that is not the Bill's intention.
Lords amendments Nos. 15 to 18, redraft clauses 3 to 5 and 7, which are the guts of the Bill. They improve the structure of that part of the Bill and tighten up the language without making any substantial changes to the meaning. The employer or insurer will still have to obtain written consent before seeking a medical report and to inform the individual of his or her rights on access and correction.
If the patient expresses a wish to see the report, the doctor will be informed and must allow up to 21 days for the patient to make arrangements for access. The patient can ask for errors to be corrected, and, if the doctor does not agree, the patient is entitled to attach a statement of his or her views. After the person has seen the doctor's proposed report, the doctor has to obtain the person's consent to send it. That is a second consent contained in the Bill. The doctor would have to keep a copy of the report for at least six months after sending it and allow the individual access to it during that. period.
12 noon.
Lords amendments Nos. 19 to 21 delete the redrafted clauses dealing with consent, notification of rights, access before the supply of a report and the giving of access. Clause 6 deals with important classes of exemption. Lords amendments Nos. 22 and 24 are purely technical and we shall discuss Nos. 23 and 25 later. Lords amendment No. 26 makes it clear that, even if a report is deemed to be exempt from access, the individual does not lose his or her right to withdraw consent for it to be sent.
Lords amendment No. 27 deletes clause 7 and the provisions on the retention of medical reports. It deletes a previously redrafted clause. Clause 8 deals with applications to a court to give people sanctions if the Bill is ignored. Lords amendment No. 28 rephrases clause 8. It improves it but only semantically and linguistically.
Lords amendment No. 29 makes it clear that notifications made under the Bill shall be made in writing and can be sent by post. There was originally some doubt about that. Lords amendment No. 30 reintroduces the power of retrospective access, which was taken out of the original clause 1.
I hope that I have satisfied the House that, although the amendments are quite lengthy and numerous, an enormous amount of careful examination has been given to the Bill by parliamentary counsel and officials, and I am grateful for their efforts. We are all tempted to throw brickbats at parliamentary counsel. In the past, I have taken them to task for doing violence to the English language and making ordinary language very complicated, but now, having been involved with two private Member's Bills, I am persuaded that there is no alternative. To make points absolutely legally clear, the language has to be superficially abstruse and arcane. I am indebted to the Under-Secretary of State for her assistance and for making available the services of parliamentary counsel and officials. I am also grateful for her extremely sympathetic attitude throughout our discussions.
I know that we are not supposed to recognise those who sit under the Gallery and work hard in high places forth of the House, but I would like also to pay a heartfelt tribute to the senior civil servant, Mr. Campion, for his advice and willingness to help, despite the many other pressures on his time. If the Civil Service has any sense of justice in terms of promotion I am sure that he will go far.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mrs. Edwina Currie): I congratulate the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) on getting his Bill this far. I join him in recognising the efforts of Lord Tordoff in the other place.
It would be wise if I started by thanking the hon. Gentleman, on behalf of Mr. Campion, for his very kind remarks about him. Mr. Campion is the official who was very much involved in drafting this Bill and the Community Health Councils (Access to Information) Bill, which has now passed all its stages and awaits Royal Assent.
It has been an interesting experience for me during this parliamentary Session to find that, of the handful of private Members Bills that are likely to receive Royal Assent, my Department has been involved with two.
I am sure that Mr. Campion and his colleagues will take carefully the advice about going far. I understand that Mr. Campion is going to the Bahamas, where he will manage the Princess Margaret hospital. I am sure that we all wish him well and will look forward to seeing him in another incarnation at some future point. I join in the tribute to parliamentary counsel and other officials.
The House will realise that if we were to ask parliamentary counsel to go through every Bill that is laid on the Table, they would do nothing else. Therefore, the promise that I made when the Bill was debated on Report and Third Reading was that if it was the will of Parliament that the Bill should at some stage proceed to the statute book, I would request parliamentary counsel to ensure that the Bill achieved the hon. Gentleman's objectives and was in a form which would enable it to operate satisfactorily and not cause undue difficulty.

Ms. Jo Richardson: I have followed with great interest the hon. Lady's explanation about the


massive rewriting of the Bill in the other place. I read in Hansard that she said that she would be a little reluctant to commit a great deal of officials' time until she saw whether the Bill would make progress. I cannot believe that she or others could have thought that the Bill would not make progress. It clearly was not blocked by the Government.
I should like to hear from the hon. Lady whether it would have been less wasteful of time for everyone—including the promoter of the Bill—if the work and the help that was offered subsequently, and that had to be put into effect in the other place, had been offered to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) right at the beginning. Removal of clauses and insertion of new clauses just confuses everyone.

Mrs. Currie: If it was possible to tell at the beginning, when there might be more than 100 private Member's Bills and, of course, Bills in the other place as well—which one was likely to be successful or to proceed further, that would be a sensible course of action. However, it is entirely a matter for the House, especially on Bills such as this, on which the Government are neutral, whether the Bill will make progress. In that sense, I think that it would be more appropriate for the hon. Lady to express appreciation, as I understand her party is not against the Bill, and as it fits in with everybody's efforts to improve the role of the consumer in the development and delivery of health.
This is a subject which, broadly, has all-party approval. I am also sure that parliamentary counsel did not spend an enormous amount of time on the Bill. Whatever the details of the drafting are, it was fairly clear from discussions in this House and in the other place exactly what the objectives are, which makes life easier for parliamentary counsel.
The difficulty of trying to legislate on issues such as this is revealed by the problems that we have had, but we remain convinced that people should have greater access to what is written about them in their records generally. The Bill as amended is consistent with the talks that are taking place with the medical profession to achieve that on a wider basis.
As I mentioned on Report and Third Reading, the discussions that we have had on the Bill and the all-party support for it have helped considerably. I believe that attitudes to access to medical records have shifted quite considerably during the past couple of years. That is in no small part due to the hon. Gentleman. We do not seek to oppose the Bill and we are content with the amendments.
The first batch contains 28 amendments. Although I do not want to disagree with the presentation made by the Bill's sponsors, it might help if I give some idea of what we are up to—[Interruption.] Rather, what we think that the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire is up to. We agree that what the amendments achieve does not affect the substance or objectives of the Bill. However, the amendments improve the Bill's overall structure so that the sponsors intentions may be presented in a more logical sequence. Some amendments have been made to the definitions section to deal with omissions and drafting infelicities.
The first batch of amendments amend clauses 1, 2, 6, 8 and 9. They omit clauses 3, 4, 5 and 7. For the sake of clarity, I am including amendments Nos. 23 and 25 which

we will debate in more detail shortly. The amendments replace the omitted clauses so that the Bill is presented in a more structured and logical way. I must emphasise that the Government are completely neutral on the Bill. The Government would prefer not to legislate, especially as we prefer to do things on a voluntary basis whenever possible. The amendments demonstrate just how difficult it is to legislate properly. However, as the Bill is likely to reach the statute book, we have provided assistance and on that basis we feel that the amendments do exactly what they are proposed to do.
Amendments Nos. 1 to 4 affect clause 1. As originally drafted, the clause was considered by my Department to be defective in that it appeared to confer a widespread right of access to medical reports unless precluded by the subsequent provisions in the Bill. That may well have been the sponsors' original intention, but we felt that that was too wide for a Bill of this order to bear.
The amendments narrow the scope of clause I while preserving its effects. As we said earlier, the exclusion of reports prepared before the Bill is enacted will be transferred from clause 1to clause 9. That is a normal parliamentary convention.
Amendments Nos. 5 to 13 affect clause 2. They are important as they help us to define the term "applicant" —the insurer or employer introduced in the new clauses. It will therefore make it much easier to interpret the legislaton in future. The amendments are also important because they will help to carry forward the sponsors' objectives to widen the definition of employment purposes and amend the definition of insurance purposes so that it focuses on the individual referred to in the various provisions in the Bill.
If the Bill is written in such a way that its exact wording carries out the sponsors' objectives, there are likely to be fewer objections to it in use. In other words, it is likely to be effective. I hope that improving the definitions will be non-controversial. However, the overall effect of amendments Nos. 5 to 13 is to focus the Bill more on the individual whose rights are the cornerstone of the Bill. The remainder of the group are minor consequential drafting amendments.
We believe that amendment No. 14 to clause 2 is quite important. It will overcome a possible ambiguity in the clause as drafted. The amendment makes clear that only reports prepared by a practitioner for employers or insurers are covered. Lord Prys-Davies made the point in Committee that the clause could apply to reports sought by a practitioner from another, which is not the intention of the Bill, as the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire explained. Therefore, it is wise to make it absolutely clear that transactions between doctors to enable a report to be prepared are not covered by this amendment. That is important and will help to reassure the medical profession.
Amendment No. 15 is also important. The new clause replaces a defective clause which will be removed later. It is at the heart of the Bill because it concerns
Consent to applications for medical reports for employment or insurance purposes.
The substitution of the new clause to replace clause 4 is primarily part of the need to draft the Bill in a more structured way. Clarification of the provisions has been made and the substance of the Bill remains unchanged. The new clause provides that in subsection (1) the applicant, whom we have now defined as the insurer or


employer, must obtain the consent of the individual—whom we have defined as the person about whom the medical report is being prepared—to seek a medical report. As the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire said, the applicant must notify the individual that he has a right to withhold consent for the report to be obtained and that he has a right to access and to withhold consent and to amend and modify the report. Without the new clause drafted in the tight way recommended by parliamentary counsel, the Bill might have presented some difficulties. We feel that these are important technical drafting improvements. If the House is mindful to pass the Bill, we believe that they should he accepted.
12.15 pm.
Amendment No. 16 substitutes clause 5 with a rewritten clause. It is, again, the result of improved drafting and does not affect the Bill's objectives. The details of the time scales within which the applicant, medical practitioner and the individual must act are strengthened in terms of seeking, supplying and having access to a medical report.
The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire will remember that we had quite a long debate in Committee and on Report and discussions at the back of the Chair over this matter because there was some ambiguity about the time scales. We feel that amendment No. 16 is the appropriate way to proceed.
Under subsection (1) of the new clause an individual is entitled when giving consent for a medical report to state whether he wants access to it. If he does, the applicant —the insurer or employer—shall notify the doctor and the individual that he has done so. Under subsection (2) the practitioner shall not provide the report to the applicant unless the individual has had access to it or 21 days have elapsed since the application was made and the individual has not taken steps to gain access to it.
Subsection (3) of the new clause provides that the individual may give notice in writing to the practitioner that he wants access before the report is sent. In those circumstances,
the practitioner shall not supply the report unless … the individual has access or … 21 days … have elapsed
and the individual has not taken steps to make the necessary arrangements. We may argue long and hard about what that time period should be. However, it needs to be fairly short so that the report still has currency. However, it must be long enough for people to have reasonable time in which to make approaches and decisions on whether they want access. We believe that the amendment is a technical improvement on principles that are already established in the Bill.
Amendment No. 17 is another new clause. It deals with
consent to supplying of report and correction of errors.
Again, this is a matter of drafting style and of a rather more structured approach. It provides in subsection (1) that an individual must give consent to a practitioner for a report to be sent to the applicant. Subsection (2) preserves the individual's right to amend the report or, if the practitioner is not prepared to make such amendments, to attach a statement to the report. Subsection (3) provides that such a request
shall be made in writing.
We had a long discussion at an earlier stage of the Bill about how the individual might show some dissent about what was being written. Having taken careful advice, we

believe that the amendment would satisfy the sponsors' objectives. They are drafting improvements which we advise the House to accept.
Amendment No. 18 is another new clause, on retention of reports. It is intended to replace the provisions in clause 7 to make drafting improvements which spell out the obligations of medical practitioners in relation to the reports that they have supplied. Again, we are talking about time scales. They must retain the reports for six months and grant access with those rights to an individual by virtue of the Bill within that six-month period. They must make a copy available for inspection and supply a copy if the individual prefers that at a reasonable charge. Again, that seems very sensible. Amendments Nos. 19, 20 and 21 have the concomitant effect of leaving out clauses 3, 4 and 5, which we have replaced.
Amendments Nos. 22, 24 and 26 amend clause 6; we shall be discussing amendments Nos. 23 and 25 in a few moments. As the promoter of the Bill pointed out, they deal with exemptions. Their main purpose is to make minor drafting adjustments. Clause 6(5) has been rewritten to improve the drafting style and structure. In summary, it improves the drafting which provides that a practitioner may withhold information where serious harm may be caused to the individual or an identified third party. Even where such exemptions exist, the practitioner shall not forward a report without the individual's consent.
Amendment No. 27 would leave out clause 7 and amendment No. 28 deals with clause 8. My note simply says that they are intended to improve drafting style and will not change the substance of the clause, and I therefore cannot offer futher comment.
Amendment No. 29 would insert a new clause to clarify the notification provisions. It says that any notification
shall be given in writing; and … may be given by post.
I understand that provision that notification may be served by post was missing from the Bill. Whether it means that notifications will be missing if they are sent by post is probably a matter for another Minister and not for me, but it is important that the provision should be included.

Mr. Robin Corbett: Malicious communications?

Mrs. Currie: I doubt whether it would be regarded as a malicious communication if it were written with the interests of the patient in mind. However, our earlier discussions may be relevant in some circumstances, which is why the Bill may be needed.
Amendment No. 30 moves from clause 1 to clause 9 the provision ensuring that the Bill does not apply retrospectively. It does not change the purpose of the Bill but simply reorders it.
Although we have a large number of amendments before us, many of them duplicate each other and many simply strengthen definitions and do not change the substance of the Bill. The overall result is a considerable improvement and all concerned are to be congratulated.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I congratulate the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) on introducing the Bill. As one of the sponsors of the Bill, I am glad that it is making progress. It deals with one aspect of access to information—a large subject on which we need to make further progress. Much


information that affects individuals is unnecessarily unavailable to them. Therefore, I heartily congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his progress with the Bill.
Like other hon. Members, I suspect, I have some difficulty in following the layout of the Bill now that substantial changes have been proposed in another place. That reflects on the way in which we deal with legislation that comes to us from the Lords with a substantial number of amendments. Would it not be more sensible to have a Bill as amended by the House of Lords, just as we consider a Bill as amended in Committee? That would make the Bill with the proposed changes easier to read. It would be less complicated than having to interpose the amendments in the original Bill as we do at the moment.

Mrs. Audrey Wise: That might be going too far and it might still be hard to compare the original Bill with the Bill as amended in the Lords. Would not one solution be to have an explanatory briefing such as we have in the Bill itself? I share the hon. Gentleman's difficulties.

Mr. Wigley: We have an explanatory memorandum at the beginning of the Bill, but it is completely irrelevant by the time that it has been rehashed in the House of Lords. In Committee, we have notes on clauses which Departments kindly supply and that is of considerable assistance to us in our work. In this case, we are discussing what is virtually a new Bill without the help of an explanatory memorandum or notes on clauses.
I would have liked to ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire one or two questions arising from the changes in the Bill, but I see that he is no longer here. I suppose that I should put them to the Minister, who hinted, when she dropped her guard a few moments ago, that much of the Bill is accepted by the Government even if it is not inspired by the Government. Perhaps she can clarify the way in which the Bill may work in practice. Not having served on the Committee, I have not had the opportunity to raise these points. First, we are avoiding retrospection. What, then, will be the position of an employer who has not taken steps as rigorous as he might otherwise have taken when employing a person, on the assumption that ongoing medical scrutiny of that person is possible? I assume that the Bill will apply to anyone now in employment who needs to have a medical. I think that the Minister sees my point, and I should be grateful for clarification.
I entirely accept the intention of the Bill to make information available, but am I correct in thinking that, even with the amendments, the Bill still provides that a report cannot be supplied without the individual's written consent? If the individual withholds that written consent—the phrase used in the explanatory memorandum for clause 5—the report cannot be given. What will be the position of an employee who is currently working for an employer if that employer starts to have misgivings about his suitability to continue to do a specific job? I worked for a time in the food industry, in which ill health could affect one's suitability for involvement at certain stages of food production. An employer at a food factory may feel that he needs a report. If the individual says that he will not give written consent, will the employer not be able to obtain the report? I imagine that that cannot be the

implication, although that is what the explanatory memorandum to the original Bill suggests. I am not sure whether the description is correct or whether there has been a change. I am sorry to be raising an involved point, but I imagine that there must be some safeguards for the employer, too. If a medical report is a material factor because of the nature of the work that the employee is undertaking, the employer must surely have some way of getting the information without there being any form of embargo. If he does not, he may be forced into moving the employee, and from that could arise issues of access to information and the involvement of industrial tribunals. I imagine that this matter could be complex and I should be glad of assurances as to how the system will work.
Amendment No. 16 refers to a time lag of 21 days. I understand that the intention is that "supplying" will include provision of a report by post. Does one need proof of posting for those purposes? Should there be registered or recorded delivery post, or is it enough for the medical practitioner to say, "I put the report in the post" and for the 21 days to start clocking away from then?
From time to time constituents see hon. Members about difficulties in getting a job. We ask the constituent whether he minds if we have a word with his doctor. I take it that the Bill, in applying to employers or those involved in insurance, will not cut across our ability to ask the doctor questions.

Mr. Kirkwood: indicated assent.

Mr. Wigley: The hon. Gentleman is saying that it definitely will not restrict that ability. The Bill as originally drafted provides for the making of inquiries, albeit not by the employer. The revised wording is tighter, and I think that my understanding of the measure is correct.
We need to be certain about these matters before the Bill reaches the statute book. In asking questions, I am in no way diminishing the Bill's importance or trying to be obstructive. As I said, I agree with the direction in which we are moving. We need to be certain about these specific points.

Ms. Jo Richardson: I congratulate the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) on introducing this worthy Bill. As I said in an intervention to the Minister, it is extraordinary that a Bill may start as a private Member's Bill but, when the Government get hold of it with their parliamentary draftspeople, it becomes entirely different. The Bill has been rewritten considerably.
The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire said that the amendments and new clauses were debated at some length in the House of Lords, but that did not happen. Lord Tordoff introduced 25 amendments and five new clauses in a speech that lasted all of nine minutes. It is a bit much to explain in only nine minutes why a Bill has been re-written and why clauses have been withdrawn and new clauses added. That is treating the House cavalierly. After those nine minutes, the House passed all the amendments and new clauses within half an hour and then on 23 June had five minutes on Third Reading. That is a superficial way of assisting Parliament in drawing up new guidelines for an important extension of freedom of information.

Mrs. Wise: To be fair to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), who is not


here at present, he said that the other place had considered this matter briefly. Exactly how briefly was not clear. The hon. Gentleman said that the Bill had been considered a great deal by officials and draftsmen and in that context he talked about the detail. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is dangerous to have the Bill considered in detail by officials and then briefly by those with parliamentary responsibility and that we should ensure that there is closer parliamentary scrutiny?

Ms. Richardson: I agree with my hon. Friend. Some Bills are only a few lines long and have a simple point to make, which one can immediately grasp. As I am a London hon. Member and am regularly in the House on Fridays, I catch up with many private Members' Bills. Some are easy and some are more difficult to absorb. I have read this Bill with great care and have tried to understand and slot in the amendments. This morning, the Minister did her best to justify why what appeared to be perfectly good drafting in the original Bill had been replaced by what she tells us is better drafting. That is beyond me.

Mrs. Currie: I am sure that the hon. Lady realises that I am not the promoter of the Bill. Indeed, if I were, there would not be a Bill.

Mr. Corbett: The Minister is neutral.

Mrs. Currie: I am entirely neutral.
The Government's view is that we should not legislate in such matters. Therefore, the hon. Lady's comments about the necessity for explanatory memoranda and all the rest should be directed to the distinguished, important and highly motivated hon. Member who is sitting in front of her, the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood).

Ms. Richardson: With great respect, I was directing my remarks to the promoter of the Bill, and I hope that he will have an opportunity to say something. From her tone, I gathered that the Minister welcomed the Bill. She said that she had waited to see what progress it made before she committed some of her parliamentary draftsmen staff to it. I thought that she took up the matter rather enthusiastically.

Mr. Wigley: Does the hon. Lady recall that the Minister said:
the proposals that we have brought forward
and then corrected herself?

Ms. Richardson: Exactly. That leads me to conclude that we must be careful. I am not against the Government —whatever Government—giving the professional assistance that they have at their disposal. Back-Bench Members who bring forward Private Members' Bills do not have that professional assistance. The Government should face up to their responsibilities and say, "In effect, now that we have altered the Bill, it is a Government Bill." I advise its promoter that the Bill is virtually a Government Bill.
I shall make some comments about a few of the amendments, if I have them right, and there is no guarantee that I have understood them all. Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 seem to be a prime example of redrafting for no purpose at all. They simply substitute one set of words for another. For example, amendment No.1 deletes the words

Subject to the provisions of this Act
and Amendment No. 2 inserts the words
in accordance with the provisions of this Act
I cannot see the difference between the two. The Minister said that the new form is tighter, and more understandable. I despair when the public see us substituting words such as
in accordance with the provisions of this Bill
for
subject to the provisions of this Bill
They may think that we are being pedantic. When asked why the words had been changed, Lord Tordoff did not know the answer.

Ms. Diane Abbott: Does my hon. Friend agree that another example of that is Amendment No. 13? It states:
leave out 'an' and insert 'the'.
Members of the public find such amendments inexplicable.

Ms. Richardson: I agree with my hon. Friend. I probably have that point among the notes that I have scribbled.
I am not trying to be unfair or introduce matters that I should not, but amendment No. 3 contains the word "individual". As a matter of interest, can the individual be a resident only of Great Britain, or can he or she be a resident of any part of the United Kingdom? I am trying to find out whether Northern Ireland is covered. [Interruption.] The Minister and her advisers are clearly trying to make up their minds. Clause 7(3) of the original Bill provided that it would extend to Northern Ireland, but that was taken out and does not appear in the present version. The Earl of Arran said that
it is the intention to apply the Bill to Northern Ireland by Order in Council once it receives Royal Assent."—Official Report, House of Lords, 18 May 1988; c. 379.
If that is so, why could not the original provision remain in the Bill, where it would have the force of statute rather than the less binding force of a Government intention? What is the reason for the change? No explanation has been given. I see the Minister struggling and seeking advice, so I assume that she does not know either. In other contexts, the Government constantly remind us that Northern Ireland is as much a part of the United Kingdom as Nottinghamshire, so why at this stage in the game do they run away from legislating for Northern Ireland identically with other parts of the United Kingdom?
Amendment No. 8, which extends the provisions of the Bill to self-employed persons, is greatly to be welcomed. Can the promoter tell me whether people on restart and training programmes after previous unemployment will be regarded as trainees for the purposes of this legislation? An employer may wish to ask for a medical certificate in respect of a trainee. This may be covered elsewhere, but the position is not clear to me.
On amendment No. 15, the Minister gave no justification for the substitution of the new clause for the provisions in the original Bill. My comments on this show my great faith in the promoter, whose Bill I understood rather better than the version now before us. All that Lord Tordoff could say was that the drafting and structure had been improved, but he offered not a shred of evidence for that sweeping generalisation. Again, the House is being treated with a certain contempt, if that is not too harsh a word, in being expected to absorb legislation of this magnitude and gravity in this way. A thoroughly worthy and laudable Bill has been virtually rewritten in the House


of Lords and very little time is available for the House of Commons to consider the new version and for the Minister to explain what is happening.
Amendment No. 22 relates to clause 6(1), which provides that a doctor may withhold some information in a medical report on certain grounds, one of which is that the information
would indicate the intentions of the practitioner in respect of the individual.
That phrase is incomprehensible and I cannot see its relevance. It is included not on its merits but as a piece of bureaucratic tidiness. Lord Tordoff also said:
The Government have asked for this exemption in order to keep in line with the Data Protection Act. That is another mystery which is slightly beyond me."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 7 June 1988; Vol. 497, c. 1310.]
One way or another, there are many mysteries in the Bill that Lord Tordoff did not clarify, because he did not understand them either. Certainly they have not been clarified in my mind.
Having said that, I do not wish in any way to alarm the Bill's promoter into thinking that I do not approve of it. It is very worthwhile legislation. Bit by bit, with this Bill and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) which will also come before us with Lords amendments, we are making a little progress—considerably more than the present Government ever made or will ever make.

Mr. Richard Holt: I only intended to look in for a few moments this morning, not meaning to get involved in any way in this legislation, which I have not followed. However, on reading the explanatory memorandum on clause 1, I wondered why we were discussing this legislation at all, as to my mind it will be almost meaningless. From my 25 years of experience in personnel, I know that the last thing an employer ever does is to call for a medical report from a would-be employee's general practitioner. He will go to somebody else. However, the explanatory memorandum states:
Only a medical report prepared by a medical practitioner who is or has been responsible for the individual's clinical care is subject to the Bill.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that, much as his comments may have been welcomed in the Second Reading debate, I shall be obliged if he will now speak to the amendments.

Mr. Holt: I appreciate your comment, Madam Deputy Speaker, and, without wishing to stretch the patience of the Chair, I spoke with the Bill's promoter before intervening and I believe that amendment 14 covers the area to which my general remarks relate.
If parliamentary time is to be allotted to improving access to medical records, which I wholeheartedly support, the narrow way in which that is to be introduced will do very little to enhance progress. If anything, it points to ways of stopping progress. I do not seek to do anything that will halt the progress of the Bill, but I hope that anyone who is enthusiastic about it will realise that there is really very little to be enthusiastic about. I trust that the Bill's promoter will not feel that I am being critical of him or of his Bill. He has done a jolly good job in bringing it

to the House, but the House itself should have amended the Bill, and the Government should have made it clear that the Bill will cover the report of any medical practitioner.

Mr. Corbett: The hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) put his finger on an extremely important point. He may be looking for the Government's assistance with this Bill, but as the Minister herself confirmed, the Government are neutral to the point of not wanting to raise a finger. She said this morning that, had she had her way, the Bill would not be before us.
I had not appreciated that reports of the kind to which the hon. Member for Langbaurgh referred, from a medical practitioner other than the individual's own GP, will be excluded. The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) made that clear, as did the Minister earlier. The concern expressed by the hon. Member for Langbaurgh is particularly important in view of his experience in personnel. I must say that it was not my point, but I hear and respect what he says. If that is so—and we have been told twice this morning that it is so—employers or insurance companies have a way around the provisions staring them in the face, and in my view it is an extremely unwelcome loophole.
I hope that the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire will accept that I am not trying to hold up the Bill, which is a step forward on a long and bumpy road. Nevertheless, an employer or prospective employer, or an insurance company, could be encouraged deliberately to avoid consulting the individual's own doctor, safe and sure in the knowledge that that individual could not then ask to see and comment on the report. We may speculate on how often that is likely to happen, and whether it is good personnel or industrial relations practice, but it could happen, and I do not think that that is right. In such circumstances, the independent doctor would not normally have access to the individual's medical records as a guide to his medical history and background, which surely is not helpful to an independent doctor asked to carry out an examination and then make a report.

Mr. Wigley: Is not the likely pattern that an employee will be required, particularly when joining a company in which his medical condition is a sensitive issue, to give an assurance that he will always be willing to submit to the scrutiny of the company's medical officer—as is often the case at present? In such circumstances, the employee will have no access to the information that the medical officer may have or may be providing to the management about him, and the medical officer will certainly not go to the employee's GP so as not to trigger the provisions of the Bill. Should we not be careful of such a development?

Mr. Corbett: That is perfectly possible. Let us view a brighter aspect of the matter and suppose that an employee is being considered for promotion to some fairly important management post. Those responsible for the appointment may want an up-to-date report on his medical condition, which would be wholly understandable. It would be sensible for an independent doctor not just to examine the individual, but to discuss with him the conclusions he has reached. Although the Bill provides that that shall not happen, there is nothing to stop it from happening.
I do not want to nit-pick, but there are other problems—

Mr. Holt: Could we expand the example that the hon. Gentleman has given, in the practical world? Let us say that a man is going into senior management, and that as part of his new emolument package he is put into a private medical insurance scheme. Will the two doctors have to communicate with each other in writing, and will that written communication be made available to the person who is to be promoted? If not, the whole thing is meaningless.

Mr. Corbett: I am afraid that I cannot answer that question: it is best directed to the promoter of the Bill.
Clause 2, which deals with interpretation, says:
'care' includes examination, investigation and diagnosis".
Can it be any one or two of those, or must it be all three? If it can be any one, two or three, could it not be argued that, because the definition must embrace an examination, an examination by an independent doctor called in by the insurance company or employer may be covered by the Bill?

Mr. Wigley: Perhaps I can assist the hon. Gentleman. Lords amendment No. 6 seeks to leave out "and" and insert "or", so that the Bill would read
'care' includes examination, investigation or diagnosis".
Presumably, "care" means a clinical examination which could be undertaken by more than one doctor.

Mr. Corbett: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, which both helps and hinders. We have established that any one of those criteria could apply. That being the case, clearly a clinical examination must be carried out by an independent doctor, and that at least would bring it partially within the Bill.
The other aspect which I find worrying echoes the point made by the hon. Member for Langbaurgh. It does not involve far-fetched circumstances. Let us suppose that the independent doctor who has been called in is uncertain on a point, after his examination of the individual, either because he does not believe what he has been told about the individual's previous medical history or because his questioning did not provide him with the information that he was seeking to confirm a conclusion that he was reaching.
As the Bill stands, it seems that the independent doctor would be unable to consult the medical practitioner responsible for the clinical care of the individual. If the independent doctor wanted to consult the individual's GP, what would be the status of the report produced by the independent doctor? One could argue that if the independent doctor consults the individual's GP, technically and practically the GP has had a hand in preparing the report of the independent doctor in the sense that his observations or revelations of previous medical history would feature in that report.
Even if the independent doctor had been denied information, opinion or assistance to confirm or clarify his or her opinion, or if the individual's regular GP had had some part, however small, in preparing the report, that would seem to bring the report into the scope of the Bill.
I am not seeking to complicate the matter. This is an important point, which worries me, because it does no service to the individual, the independent doctor, the employer or the insurance company if the independent doctor's report is flawed or incomplete in that it is unable to tell a full and accurate story.
If that is so, what is the value of such a report unless it is confined to establishing what is the general state of health of the individual, to which the answer is bad, not so bad, good, very good or excellent? I am not absolutely sure how much value that would have in terms of prospective senior management. I should have thought that there are people knocking about who could do that without any medical qualification.
What is the value of that report? Surely it is in everybody's interest that the report should be as accurate as possible. Surely it is beyond belief to make a distinction between a report drawn up by an individual's regular GP and that of a company doctor called in for that purpose. I suspect, because of the time, that we shall have to let this one go if we want to give the Bill a fair wind to the statute book, as I am sure the whole House would wish to do. We keep nibbling at the edges of this subject and it is perfectly obvious from the comments that have been made today that it is something to which we will have to return, probably in the context of a full-blooded freedom of information Act. That is the only way to clear up this and many other issues.

1 pm

Mr. Kirkwood: I am suitably chastened as I fully expected to be, bringing before the House this plethora of amendments. I understand the comments that have been made. There were constraints of time and I was not highly placed in the list of private Members' Bills. The pressure of time in the Department was also considerable. I accept that it is difficult for the House to cope with such a number of amendments which substantially change the wording of the Bill. However, the Under-Secretary of State and I, who are at one on this, have been trying to make the point that there is no major change of substance in the Bill. The issues in the Bill as we are suggesting it should be amended are not significantly different from those in the Bill during the earlier stages.
It is true that there was a formal Second Reading and that the Committee and Report stages were constrained. I fully accept that. However, that was the time when some of the issues should have been raised. The important points that have been made by hon. Members today were in the Bill then, although perhaps in different words.
We must bear in mind that the provenance of the Bill is simply to try to get round the fact that medical files kept by general practitioners are substantially inaccurate in many cases. That is what causes people to suffer the prejudice that the Bill seeks to redress. The Bill does not seek to be a freedom of information Act, which I would fully support, and it does not seek to address the question of independent medical reports. It simply attempts to give individuals an additional layer of protection against suffering prejudice because some mistake, subjective comment or other piece of information finds its way into medical files, which as I have said follow people from the cradle to the grave. Such information could cause people to suffer prejudice when applying for jobs or insurance policies.
The Bill has a limited objective and I accept that. Anybody who studies the information that has been made available to me by the freedom of information campaign and others about the extent to which individuals can suffer prejudice in such circumstances would be convinced of the need for this small change in the law. It simply seeks to


ensure that any information made available specifically for the purpose of prospective employers or insurers will be accurate.
If that is the genesis of the idea behind the legislation, it is necessary only to focus on the information derived from the medical files. Therefore, independent examinations, for which prospective employers or insurers are entitled to ask, have a more limited function. In an independent report there is no danger that an error in the medical file will be translated into a report that will cause an individual to suffer prejudice. We have to keep the proposal in that context.

Mr. Wigley: The hon. Gentleman spoke of a "prospective" employer. I am sure that he will confirm that we are dealing with not just prospective employers but existing employers. That is my understanding of the wording in both the Bill and the amendment from the other place. Secondly, there is an amendment that changes the definition of "care" to specify, "examination, investigation or diagnosis." That is an important amendment which substitutes "or" for "and". In that context would not a doctor who is responsible for the clinical examination of an individual come within the scope of the Bill and would that not include a doctor working for a company? If it does, the Bill goes considerably wider—in many ways I would welcome that —but it will cause problems with the individual's ability to prevent the report being available to a company's management. It is an issue that we must address before passing it as law.

Mr. Kirkwood: Reports required during the course of someone's employment as well as when they apply for a job will be included in the Bill. That was certainly the Bill's original intention.
The change of the definition of the word "care" is specifically designed—I took advice on this matter—to exclude people conducting independent examinations. Reports should be made on the objective or clinical judgment of a general practitioner who has a patient in front of him, of whom he can ask questions, and examine and on whom he can carry out tests and do all the other things he needs to do to arrive at a conclusion. It is only necessary for the GP to state whether the person is suitable for the job in question. The general practitioner does not have to go into a deep psychological or mental history. He must certify only that the person is medically fit for the job.
I am trying to ensure that the patient does not suffer any prejudice because the medical file that the GP has been using is wrong. Medical files are transmitted from GP to GP.

Mr. Wigley: I am sorry to press the hon. Gentleman, but I am sure that hon. Members will agree that it is important to clarify this matter. In the Bill the definition of "a medical report" means a report.
of an individual prepared by a medical practitioner who is or has been responsible for the clinical care of the individual
and that means the clinical examination of the individual. Doctors who work for companies or are used by companies may have been responsible for the clinical examination of an employee. Such a doctor may not be the GP of the employee. In those circumstances, a report

prepared by that doctor for the company would be subject to the procedures of the Bill. If the employee says, "No, that report cannot be used" it would be a veto on its use.

Mr. Kirkwood: I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but that is not the advice that I have been given. Independent examinations are outwith the scope of the Bill. I do not believe that it is necessary to include them. If that definition is inadequate, I apologise. I hope that assistance will come from another direction that is completely outwith my control.
The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) made a further important point and I do not want to duck it. He said that employers may suffer inconvenience by being denied access to information. The information about which I am talking is that supplied by a patient to a general practitioner in confidence. The medical file follows the patient from cradle to grave. I do not believe that, because inconvenience may be suffered by an employer, individuals should have to allow information to be passed on if it cannot be cast-iron guaranteed as accurate and correct.

Mr. Wigley: In general, I agree with the hon. Gentleman. That is why I am a sponsor of the Bill.

Mr. Kirkwood: Why, then, does the hon. Gentleman not leave me alone?

Mr. Wigley: I am determined that any Bill that I sponsor can be defended by me when it leaves this place. A person with a contagious disease might be working in a food factory. The implications for the general public go beyond the rights of the individual. I want to be sure that we have struck the right balance.

Mr. Kirkwood: Individuals will have the right to see the report, or they will have the right to make a written statement if they cannot persuade the doctor that the report is inaccurate. They will also have the right to say that the report must not be sent. That would be the best way to deal with the case that the hon. Member for Caernarfon described. If an applicant, suffering from a contagious disease, worked in a food factory and denied the doctor the right to send a report based on his medical record, the employer would be able to ask for an independent medical examination, and that would reveal the contagious infection.
I am trying to protect the individual in as many ways as I can from being prejudiced by incorrect information on his medical file. The hon. Member for Caernarfon and I agree that the best policy would be to allow patients to have access to all their medical files. The Department is moving fast, although not fast enough for some of us, in that direction. I detected an encouraging warmth of tone, if no more than that, in the Minister's voice when she said that some progress is being made. If sufficient progress had already been made, there would be no need for the Bill, but we are not there yet.
We were given advice about what happens in Northern Ireland. It is an important point. If parliamentary draftsmen have to find their way through arcane procedures, those governing Northern Ireland are even more arcane to a simple-minded Scottish Member of Parliament such as I. I am told that Orders in Council are the appropriate way to deal with Northern Ireland legislation and that it would be without precedent to legislate for new statutory rights without going through


the Order in Council procedure. I pass on that information for what it is worth. That is what I was told when I asked the question.
We considered at some length how the self-employed would be affected by the Bill. I understand that if a contract is in prospect between an employee and an employer the provisions of the Bill would apply, but a complicating factor is whether the prospective employer is a Department of State. We may have to return to that point when we discuss later amendments.
I am sensitive to the criticism that the House is being asked to consider an unsatisfactory Bill, but I am not the master of my own destiny. It is self-evident that the Bill is not perfect, but if the amendments were accepted, the possibility of ambiguous construction by the courts would be much less likely. I throw myself on the mercy of the House and ask it to accept the Lords amendment.

Mrs. Currie: If I may respond to the point that the Bill is different now because the Government have taken an interest in it, I would point out that in our view the Bill is
important. The alternative to corrections by parliamentary draftsmen would be to allow deficiencies to appear in legislation approved by the House. The Government have a responsibility to help everybody to avoid legislative nonsense. That does not by itself make it a Government Bill. I consider that responsibility important. In my previous incarnation, much of the work I did involved making some kind of sense of and headway with legislation passed by a Labour Government. If they had taken as much care with all their legislation as the promoter of the Bill and his sponsors are taking with this piece of legislation, no doubt we would have had a much easier time.
1.15 pm
I thought it might help if, for 10 seconds, I allowed a slight glimpse behind the dark curtain of Government processes and gave the House an idea of exactly why parliamentary counsel felt that some major redrafting was necessary. Parliamentary counsel were examining why we needed new clauses to replace clauses 3 to 5 and 7. They said:
I confess that we have found those clauses of the Bill somewhat unsatisfactory from a structural point of view: it does not strike us as being very easy to see how the story develops over the clauses. In particular, the opening words of clause 5(1) are somewhat divorced from what has gone on before. And clause 5(1)(a)(ii) is intimately connected with the provision tucked away in clause 7.
The hon. Gentleman did not spot that when he wrote his Bill, and neither did I when I discussed it with him on Report and Third Reading. I suppose we should both offer the House an explanation and an apology. It is, on my side, offered with a full heart and great contrition.
I must apologise if I confused the Opposition earlier—especially the hon. Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson), for whom I have the greatest respect and affection—when I said that, if we had our way, there would not be a Bill. What I meant was that in all our discussions about the efforts that have been made to improve patients' access to information written about them in medical records—access which we regard as increasingly important and valuable in improving their health and their compliance with the advice and assistance offered to them by their doctors—we prefer to proceed by negotiation. I am content that we are making progress in

that, but we never rule out the possibility of legislation. I suppose it sits there as a dark threat of what might happen if we do not make any progress on these matters.
Our objective is to try to improve the relationship between doctors and their patients and to make sure that confidence, which should be a major part of the relationship between doctor and patient, is reinforced. That should be very much a part of the pattern of acceptance of treatment and care in future. It is not intended in any way to diminish that confidence or to interfere with that relationship, but if Parliament decides —as it may in about five or 10 minutes—that it wishes this piece of legislation to proceed, the Government are, of course, entirely helpless, but will do whatever they can to ensure that it goes on to the statute book in the appropriate way.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 22 agreed to.

Clause 6

EXEMPTIONS

Lords amendment: No. 23, in page 3, line 34, after "individual" insert "or others".

Mr. Kirkwood: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
I can deal with this amendment fairly briefly, but it is a matter of some substance that I thought right to single out for special attention.
Lords Amendment No. 23 slightly widens the exemptions in clause 6 of the original Bill. Under that clause, a doctor can withold part of a report from an individual if the doctor judges that disclosure would cause severe physical or mental harm to that individual. The amendment would allow access to be witheld in the very, I hope, exceptional circumstances where it was thought that harm to some other person, apart from the individual, could arise—for example, if it was thought that a seriously disturbed person might be provoked into making a violent attack on someone else.
It is a sensible provision and has sufficient substance to merit some discussion on its own. I hope that the House will agree to the amendment.

Mr. Eric Forth (Mid-Worcestershire): I had wanted to intervene in the speech made by the hon. Member For Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), but I will make my comments in a speech instead.
I would like clarification on some points. Who will make the decision about the invocation of the exemption? There might be some difficulties here over who decides whether a matter was an exemption under the terms that have been described to the House. We must be sure that we are satisfied that if, as I assume, the doctor takes the decision, the Bill includes provisions in connection with the freedom of access to information to reverse the matter and provide an exemption. It seems to me as a layman that this matter might range quite widely depending on the definition and interpretation of the phrases used. Although the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire gave only one example, we can all think of others. I wonder whether we are satisfied that the point is sufficiently well defined and that we are clear as to whose discretion would be effective to take the decision. I hope that that will be clarified.

Mrs. Currie: This clause is a little different from the other clauses. The Government's view is that the House might want to accept the amendment, but with one or two more genuine reservations than those expressed previously.
As drafted, clause 6 provides that information may be withheld from the individual by the practitioner where disclosure would be likely to cause serious harm to the individual. The amendment seeks to extend the exemption to cover all others. I understand that Lord Mottistone was strongly backed by the National Schizophrenia Fellowship.
The amendment is consistent with the subject access provisions in the Data Protection Act 1984 relating to social work but not consistent with the subject access provisions for health. To be included, such a provision would run counter to the European convention on the use of automated medical data banks. No such constraints are imposed in social work. However, that is not a reason to oppose the amendment.
We believe that the proposal is sensible, although such a provision is likely to be used only rarely. Our slight concern in accepting the amendment is that it might just set a precedent. However, we would expect it to be used rarely and I believe that that would be the view of Lord Mottistone. On that basis, I want to put it on record that we accept the amendment with reservations.

Mr. Corbett: The Opposition welcome the amendment. As the Minister has said, and as other hon. Members will be aware, the National Schizophrenia Fellowship for the welfare of sufferers and their relatives made this point and in a letter to myself and doubtless to other hon. Members said:
In our Fellowship's view it is not only the physical or mental health of the individual which may be at risk if he sees his medical report, but that of others. If there is a history of violence, it could be the last straw to see a medical report which … could easily lead to physical assault.
I agree with the Minister that this provision is likely to be used very rarely. It must be used with the utmost care and sensitivity, and no doubt it will be.

Mr. Kirkwood: I hope that I can persuade the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) that the exemption provisions in clause 7 give the medical practitioner the discretion, as he rightly pointed out, to deny access. I do not think that the situation will arise all that often. Our discussions with the medical profession including the British Medical Association and others show that clear guidelines will be available to doctors through their own ethics committees adequately to cover this point. However, that is not on the face of the Bill. I was persuaded that it was not necessary to include anything on the face of the Bill to cover that because the exemption will be so infrequent and the guidance available from the Department and the BMA will cover the point adequately. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be prepared to accept that.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 24 agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 25, in page 3, line 45, leave out subsections (3) and (4).

Mr. Kirkwood: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
I moved a number of amendments in Committee, which the Government considered to be essential, as they

brought the Bill into line with the access provisions of the Data Protection Act 1984. It is sensible for legislation to be brought in line. However, one of the amendments repeated the exemption provisions of the Data Protection Act 1984 for information that was harmful to national security. I remember the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) expressing mild puzzlement—to speak euphemistically—as to how the issue of national security could arise in a Bill that was concerned with general practitioner reports to employers and insurers. To be fair to the Government, the original scope of the Bill was not clear. Someone—not the Minister, I am sure—must have thought that the definition of medical reports might catch accidentally psychological profiles based on lie detector tests at GCHQ. That was not the intention. I am pleased that the Government have thought again about the national security issue and have agreed that that exemption is unnecessary. Amendment No. 25 removes references to that exemption.
It has only just become clear to me that for the provisions of the Bill to apply to Government Departments and the Civil Service, the long title would have had to specify that the Bill sought to remove Crown immunity and that Government Departments would come within the scope. The House Mould ponder that because I should not like to be accused of ignoring it. I have recently received advice that Government Departments will be left outside the scope of the Bill; that point was not discussed at earlier stages. If Crown immunity had been removed explicitly, it would have been necessary to state that in a clause at the beginning of the Bill.
Crown immunity leaves a substantial loophole. I hope that Government Departments will respond positively and that the spirit of the law will be embraced by them in a moral sense. I hope that they will seek to comply with the Bill both for new and for existing employees. I hope that I am not pushing my luck to far in saying to the Minister that as she has been so helpful so far, she could put a cap on that assistance by telling me that she will advise her Department, as an employer, to accept the spirit of the legislation.

Mr. Forth: The hon. Gentleman is pushing his luck.

Mr. Kirkwood: Nothing ventured, nothing gained.
I hope that the House will discuss the amendment against that background. It is important because it relates to Government Departments.

Mrs. Currie: I hope that the House agrees that we have had an interesting morning. Apart from anything else, in a small and, I hope, tantalising way, I have drawn aside the veil of secrecy that surrounds the detailed advice that Ministers are given. The House is about to hear me say that I was wrong, and I do not often do that either. This is a great historic event. In view of the comments made on amendment No. 25, it is probably as well that anyone else who seeks to promote a private Member's Bill should take note of the fact that Bills do not bind the Crown unless they specifically say so. Since the change is usually major and requires extensive consultation and discussion, it is not normally acceptable to the Government, unless they say so at the beginning, and there is usually ample time —six months or more—in which discussions can be held.
On 29 April, when we were debating national security exemptions, I responded to points made by the Opposition. Referring to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), I said:
the hon. Gentleman may like to take some proper advice about it. It is for the promoter of the Bill to decide whether the amendment should stand or be withdrawn. It is our view that it improves the Bill. We would wish to take further advice if the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) wants to withdraw it."—[Official Report, 29 April 1988; Vol. 132, c. 685.]
There was considerable discussion on Report, and when the Bill left the House extensive consultations took place with the Home Office, the machinery of Government office—the Minister for the Civil Service—the Ministry of Defence, the Cabinet Office and my Department. No valid case could be made to support the view that a national security exemption was justified within the limitations of the Bill—taking into account the point about pre-existing Crown immunity—and officials advised the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire accordingly. Parliamentary counsel's advice on how the amendment might be removed was sought. On 29 April, I said that the clause improved the Bill. I was wrong—it does not improve the Bill. Therefore we are content that amendment No. 25 should be made.
The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire asked about my Department's views. We have had discussions and I am happy to offer the House the assurance that the DHSS will follow the spirit of the Bill and that my officials have been so instructed. The Bill applies in England, Scotland and Wales, but not in Northern Ireland, until an Order in Council is made. The hon. Gentleman will have to make inquiries of other Departments elsewhere and outwith the Bill.

Mr. Corbett: It is a rare and historic moment when we hear the Minister at the Dispatch Box apologise for what was said in the House on 29 April, and I thank her—[Interruption.] Not at all. I am in favour of any hon. Member, whether an exalted Back Bencher or a lowly Front-Bench spokesperson saying that he or she made a mistake and got it wrong. There is no shame in that.
I am sure that the hon. Lady will forgive me, but she did not do herself justice by reminding us of what she said on 29 April. She could hardly get to her feet quickly enough to accuse me of firing Exocets and generally to chastise me in her best headmistressy, nay matronly, fashion for raising this matter and to tell me that I was not only wrong to raise it but was raising the wrong point on the wrong Bill.
Things move on, and all I want to do in thanking the Minister for seeing the ludicrousness of the proposition is to say that, on reflection, it was not my Exocet that put her in such a state but the boomerang that she had in her hand, because it has come back and taken her head off her shoulders. [Inerruption] I am an old technology person as well.
Following my contribution, the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) said:
I assure the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) that it is the most acceptable agreement that could be reached in the time available."—[Official Report, 29 April 1988; Vol. 132, c. 685.]
That is why I saw the Minister's paws all over that part of the Bill. All's well that ends well, and I hope that the House accepts the amendment.

Mr. Kirkwood: This is the final stage of the Bill's progress. I am grateful for the response by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett). He ends up with all the Brownie points—certainly in respect of the last amendment. I am genuinely grateful for the Minister's statement about the response that her Department will make. I hope that the House will now consider that the Access to Medical Reports Bill finally recognises the possible harm that could be caused by incorrrect or misleading information recorded in medical files. The Bill introduces safeguards in employment and insurance matters, and certainly trades additional administrative procedures to be carried out by employers and insurance companies for enhanced protection for individuals. I hope that the House will consider that it is worth paying that price. I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 26 to 30 agreed to.

Protection of Animals (Amendment) Bill

Lords amendments considered.

Clause 2

OFFENCES RELATING TO ANIMAL FIGHTS

Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 1, line 27, at end insert—

"Advertising of animal fights
5B. If a person who publishes or causes to be published an advertisement for a fight between animals knows that it is such an advertisement he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale.

Mr. John Browne: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): With this, it will be convenient to take Lords amendment No. 2.

Mr. Browne: Madam Deputy Speaker, you may remember that the Bill was introduced into this House on 28 October 1987, was given a Second Reading on 11 December, and spent some three days in Committee, finishing on 24 February of this year, and one day on Report, receiving its Third Reading on 27 April. In the other place, it was given a First Reading on 25 April, a Second Reading on 23 May, the Committee stage was on 8 June, Report was on 16 June, and the Bill was given a Third Reading on 27 June. It is now before us for consideration of Lords amendments.
I shall—I hope, helpfully—outline to the House the main points of the Bill.
Clause 1 enables a court to disqualify a person from having custody—not merely the ownership but the custody—of any animal upon first conviction under the Protection of Animals Act 1911 or the Protection of Animals (Scotland) Act 1912.
Clause 2(1) increases the penalties for unlawful attendance at animal fights in England and Wales from level 1, which, is £50, to level 4, which is £1,000. That is a 20 fold increase in fine.
Clause 2(2) extends to any individual or group such as the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals authority to prosecute those unlawfully attending animal fights. That clause is terribly important. It opens to the RSPCA and to any individual the ability to bring such prosecutions which, previously, were limited to the police under the three mid-19th century police Acts. It is a great opening up of the power of the individual citizen to start to hammer people engaged particularly in attending such events as animal baits and animal fights.
Clause 2(3) creates the offence of unlawful attendance at animal fights in Scotland.
The two Lords amendments, taken together, make it a specific offence knowingly to advertise an animal fight.
To be helpful, I shall retrace some of the background to the Lords amendments. Right hon. and hon. Members may remember that, in an amendment tabled during the Commons Committee stage, it was proposed that the advertising of animal fights should be made an offence. There was general sympathy for the intention behind the amendment, but it was thought that such advertising might already be covered by the provisions of the

Protection of Animals Act 1911. My hon. Friend the Minister undertook to consider the matter further, and, on that basis, the amendment was withdrawn.
Subsequently, it became apparent that advertising, when the advertiser was also the organiser, was covered by the term "procure" in section 1(1)(c) of the 1911 Act, which makes it an offence to
cause, procure, or assist at the fighting or baiting, of any animal".
Advertising by a person otherwise unconnected with the fight, however, is too far removed from the fight to constitute procuring and may thus not be an offence under existing law.
The introduction of a new offence to cover such advertising was not a straightforward option. For instance, it would not be acceptable unless it included the defence that an advertisement was placed unknowingly. As the House knows, advertisements in newspaper are often couched in veiled terms. It was also necessary to consider whether there were likely to be many advertisers not directly involved in the organisation of fights who would nevertheless have sufficient knowledge of the nature of the advertisement, despite its being in veiled form, to be guilty of knowingly advertising a fight. Given also that such an amendment at that stage might have prejudiced the progress of the Bill, it was decided to proceed no further at that time.
On Report in this House, an amendment was again moved to include an offence of advertising. It became clear that the term "advertising" was intended to mean the relaying of information by any means, from word of mouth to advertisement in newspapers and journals, usually subtly disguised. Advertisements for books describing the illegal activities of animal fighting or baiting, and editorials describing such fights in detail were also mentioned as possible targets for a new offence, as was any material which might encourage animal fighting by publicising it. It was suggested that the amendment should aim to make it illegal to promote animal fights.
In the light of that debate, my hon. Friend the Minister agreed to reconsider whether a suitable form of words could be found for a new offence which would adequately reflect the essence of the concern of hon. Members. The matter was referred to parliamentary counsel, who advised that the general law of incitement should already be sufficient to deal with persons orally encouraging others to attend animal fights and to cover written advertisements. Nevertheless, it was decided that as there were already numerous specific statutory provisions dealing with unlawful written advertisements, it would be inappropriate for an offence of advertising to be included in the Protection of Animals Act 1911.
The Lords amendments' which were moved in Committee in another place, include the words:
knows that it is such an advertisement".
In the case of a coded advertisement, it would be for the prosecution to produce evidence to establish that the advertisement was related to animal fighting and would have been so understood by devotees of that activity. Those amendments were welcomed and agreed by the Committee in another place on 8 June.
One point should be brought to the attention of the House before a decision is reached. Such advertisements, even in coded or veiled form, are often used by the police and the RSPCA as a form of intelligence to discover where offences are likely to take place. Having reviewed the


situation and reflected on the matter, I am persuaded on balance, that the Lords amendments should stand. I therefore support them and urge the House to accept them.
1.45 pm
I am greatly pleased by the reception given to the Bill from all quarters of both Houses of Parliament. I have received a large amount of mail in support of the Bill—not just from my constituency but from throughout the country. It all shows that there is enormous goodwill towards animals and a very great deal of concern for animal welfare in our country. That concern has been reflected in Government legislation, in the Scientific Procedures Act 1986; the Pet Animals (Amendment) Act 1983 and the Protection of Animals (Penalties) Act 1987. We have also seen the passing of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1980. Furthermore, we have seen the Government support a large number of private Members' Bills on animal protection and welfare. All that goes to show that what is felt generally in the country is in fact being reflected by legislation in the House, not only from private Members but from the Government.
Having said that, I regret the need to bring in such a Bill. Why does animal cruelty exist in our country, to the extent that such legislation is necessary? What is worse, cruelty is actually on the increase.
There are three types of animal cruelty. The first is brought about by ignorance, when people either feed or keep an animal or pet in conditions that are effectively cruel, but they just do not see it. Secondly, there is the cruelty brought about by negligence, such as when people leave a dearly loved pet dog in a car park, in the summer sunshine, in a motor car, with all the windows closed. It is cruel, but people are just neglectful. This is particularly important because more and more pets are now being kept and therefore cruelty, whether it be by ignorance or negligence, has to be watched.
Here, we are dealing with the third type of cruelty, which is quite deliberate and calculated. It stems from two main attitudes. One is an attitude of carelessness for the feelings and suffering of animals. The other, which is much more serious, is from a warped sense of enjoyment at the degradation and repulsive torture of animals. It is something quite outrageous when one considers that we think of ourselves as a nation of animal lovers, which in general we are. It might involve a relatively small proportion of the population, but it is so disgusting that legislation is necessary to stamp on it, and to stamp on it hard. I am thinking particularly of things such as animal fights involving cocks or dogs, and badger baiting.
It is true that many animals fight and even kill in the wild—usually over mates, over food and over hunting territories, but the loser of one of those contests is either pretty rapidly killed or can run away. In an animal fight or in a bait, the loser cannot run away—there is no question of retreat. The animals are put in a pit or in a ring, and it is this natural instinct of the one who is defeated to run away, often without any blood lost that is totally eliminated in a dog or cock fight, or in a badger bait.
Animals also fight and kill in the wild, in order to eat. Usually this event is quick. The predator is usually either much larger or much more efficient in terms of its killing ability than its prey, and the death is usually fast. Unfortunately, in animal fights—particularly with dogs and badgers-—deaths are long and drawn out; usually

about four hours. Often, the badger has not just one but two or three dogs put against it, and when one of the terriers gets wounded, a fresh terrier is put in, to keep the number up. It is the most galling sight that you will ever have seen, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is revolting. Worse still, it is on the increase. Indeed, the RSPCA experience shows that it is on the increase. Prosecutions brought under the 1911 Act have risen by 25 per cent. in the past six years, and 5 per cent. of those convictions were such bad cases that the individuals concerned were put into custody immediately. I fear that this is only the tip of the iceberg: for every person prosecuted and convicted, several more probably go unseen. The import of pit bull terriers from the United States, bred specifically for dog fighting, is also a very sinister sign of the need for the legislation.
During my researches, it was suggested to me that ready cash bets for as much as £100,000 are being put on dog fights, that a mature pit bull terrier sells for £1 0,000, and that there are indications that drug money is finding its way into these illegal fights. I have to say that I have seen no proof of that. However, given that money plays a significant part in dog fights in the form of heavy betting, given that those who take part in their organisation or attend them are the type of person likely to be involved in other crimes and given that illicit drug dealing is currently one of the more prevalent types of moneymaking crime, it is perhaps to be expected that a proportion of the money directed towards animal fights should derive from drug dealing. I should therefore appreciate it if my hon. Friend the Minister would agree to alert the police forces at least to keep a weather eye open for the phenomenon.
We all know that private Members' Bills are very delicate and are easily killed at any of their 11 stages. I have been very lucky not only to have drawn the 12th position in the ballot but to have been given four days of parliamentary time in this House alone, and to have had the support of hon. Members on both sides. I should like to close by thanking my sponsors, who came from all the major parties, and the members of the Committee, who gave up three days of their time without any Government whipping. I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) is present. He made some valuable contributions in Committee in helping to get the fines increased, and I am grateful to him for that. I also thank Lord Houghton of Sowerby, who, as you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, is a very experienced parliamentarian. He took on and piloted the Bill in another place in a very professional, skilled and charming manner.
I thank right hon. and hon. Members and noble Lords in all quarters of both Houses for supporting the Bill, the civil servants from the Home Office and the Clerks Department for their help and advice, and, of course, my Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Mr. Durant). Last but not least, I thank my hon. Friend the Minister, who has been not only constantly helpful but creatively flexible. As you know from your experience on the Back Benches, Madam Deputy Speaker, for a Minister really to listen to Back-Bench feeling, to accept amendments put forward when the Government have had a pretty solid line and to start to mould Government opinion on his feet from the Front Bench, is not altogether common in this place, and should be mentioned. Such creative flexibility should not be taken for granted: it reflects the confidence of an hon. Gentleman who is right on top of his job, and the House and the nation should be grateful for it. Finally, I thank you, Madam Deputy


Speaker, your fellow Deputy Speakers and the Chairman of the Committee for all the patience that you have exhibited.
The Bill has shown all quarters of both Houses at their best in Parliament. It has also shown Government at their best—in other words, willing to listen to Back-Bench opinion and to make adjustments to their planned course. The Bill has taken a considerable amount of parliamentary time, and has been steadily improved throughout its passage—as I think it will be today by the acceptance of these amendments.
I urge the House to accept the Lords amendments and to commend the Bill humbly to Her Majesty for Royal Assent.

Mr. Harry Cohen: The House can say, "Well done" to the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne). After today, I very much hope that the Bill will reach the statute book. I have been working to improve it all along the way. It could be said that I have dogged the promoter all along the way. I do not know whether that is the right word. Perhaps, on this issue only, I have been a faithful friend in ensuring that the Bill reaches the statute book.
As we are discussing dogs and dog fighting, I am very pleased that my hon. Friend the member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) is in her place. I hope that the House will excuse my poor play on words at the beginning of the debate.

Ms. Jo Richardson: If my hon. Friend allows enough time, we will get on to donkeys and asses as well.

Mr. Cohen: I take my hon. Friend's intervention as a reprimand for being so asinine and I apologise for that.
I thank the sponsor, and I also thank the Minister for his commitment to review the amendment that I tabled at an earlier stage. He was most helpful and constructive in getting it incorporated into the Bill in another place. He gets my accolade and my support when he is helpful and constructive; I only wish that he was more helpful and constructive on other issues. He is not, not because of any personal defect, but because of his own narrow party political interests. However, in this case I congratulate him on getting into the Bill my amendment making knowingly to promote a fight between animals an offence. He was concerned as he thought that the Bill was a fragile vessel, but I am pleased to say that he got it in and the Bill is still afloat.
The amendments are an improvement to the Bill and close an important loophole. The amendments would make it an offence to know
that it is such an advertisement".
There is still the excuse of not knowing. The publisher of such an advertisement could say that he did not know that it was such an advertisement. Clearly it would be for the courts to decide whether the publishers knew. In many such instances there would be a pretence by the publishers of such advertisements. They might claim that they did not know, when really they were not too bothered, and were more interested in taking the money for the advertisement. In most cases they will have known but it will be for the courts to decide the extent of their knowledge.
The amendments deal with
a person … publishing or causing to be published an advertisement for a fight between animals".

If the person who actually published the advertisement did not know that it was such an advertisement, it will be the duty of the police to find the person who initiated the advertisement and caused it to be published, as, under the amendments, that person will be guilty of an offence. Even if the person publishing the advertisement was duped, under the amendments the person behind the advertisement should be taken to court.
The newspaper publishers and the freesheets which contain such advertisements should be more aware of them and not accept them.

2 pm

Mr. Dennis Skinner: What about the level of fine?

Mr. Cohen: I am just coming to that. The Bill says that a person
shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale.

Mr. Skinner: That is £1,000.

Mr. Cohen: That is right. It is an appallingly low fine, especially since the RSPCA has reported that sometimes a bet of £50,000 can be put on an animal or dog fight. When one is talking about such large amounts of money, £1,000 does not seem an adequate fine. The inadequacy of the fine also applies to those who organise the fight. They should be hit really hard and sent to prison for a long time. However, at least it is the first step on the ladder. I hope that in future we will increase the fine for people who knowingly take part in advertising such fights.

Mr. John Browne: The hon. Gentleman said "take part". It should be emphasised that the participation and organisation of such fights is subject to a fine of £2,000 and/or six months' imprisonment.

Mr. Cohen: That is absolutely right. I was referring to those who take an active part in advertising such fights.
On 22 April in columns 1103 and 1104 of Hansard I referred to "formal advertisements" appearing in magazines such as Shooting News and Weekly. Since then I and other hon. Members have received a letter from that magazine, which is concerned about what I said at that time. I am considering the letter and will give a proper response. I acknowledge that the magazine has not contained "formal advertisements" recently. Perhaps I should have been a little more careful when choosing my language. Perhaps I should have said that the adverts were more informal, offering encouragement to those who take part in animal fights.
In column 1104 I quoted an advertisement that appeared in Shooting News and Weekly on 6 December 1985. The advertisement was for a book entitled, "Badger Digging with Terriers". It contained information on how to hunt badgers with dogs, an activity that is banned under the law of the land. The book clearly encourages that activity and that was a genuine point to make.
That advertisement was taken to the magistrates court, but the case was lost. The people who initiated the case ran out of money and could not take the matter further. According to the magistrates it was a book on a historical activity and dealt with badger baiting in the past. That was a feeble basis for the decision. If someone published a book on the history of child pornography and used it as an excuse to show child pornography or published the history


of terrorism and showed how to make bombs or how to become a terrorist, the House and the courts would move in quickly and say that it was not appropriate. It was therefore wrong for that decision to be made about that advertisement. It will indirectly allow people to advertise animal fights.
The amendments close a gaping loophole. Mention was made in a previous debate of an Order in Council. I know that this legislation will not apply to Northern Ireland, but I hope that that will be corrected by an Order in Council. I do not know what can be done about verbal advertising in public houses of where dog fights will take place. I hope that the problem will be tackled by future legislation. If people are paid to advertise dog fights we must introduce legislation to tackle that problem.
I welcome the Bill, but we will need more Bills to tackle the extensive level of cruelty in this country. We also need Bills to abolish blood sports, the murderous season of which is in full cry. I hope that the House will consider badger baiting, hare coursing and fox and stag hunting in the future and introduce bans on those activities. I shall certainly try to introduce legislation to impose an unequivocal ban on all hunting with dogs.
There is a connection between fox hunting and dog fighting. We are all united against dog fighting, but too many Conservative Members support fox hunting. Those who take part in fox hunting are upper-class vicious thugs but those who take part in dog fighting are the rural-working class—but only a stratum of it that is trying to emulate the upper-class thugs. In many cases, the working-class thugs are linked to the hunt and get a bit of extra murderous pleasure from dog fighting. One problem cannot be tackled without tackling the other, which is why we must get rid of fox hunting.

Ms. Mildred Gordon: Does my hon. Friend agree that reports of the royal family's children being blooded with the brush of the fox are offensive to everybody who cares about the welfare of animals?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I should be obliged if the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) would refer to the amendments.

Mr. Cohen: My hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms. Gordon) makes a good and genuine point, which I fully support. I do not intend to say any more on that point, unless my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) wants to question me about it.

Mr. Skinner: I do not know how far the Bill extends. I am occupying what used to be known as the Liberal Bench—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I should be obliged if I could see the hon. Gentleman's handsome face.

Mr. Skinner: You are a friend of mine, Madam Deputy Speaker, and you sat on the NEC. Who knows, you might be putting up for the top job. You might be doing a bit of canvassing, similar to the letters from the Whips that I have received recently.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) remembers that there used to be dog fights between the leader of the SDP and the leader of the Liberal party. Are they included in the Bill?

Mr. Cohen: Unfortunately they are not. They are not in alliance now, but those dog fights are still going on. I pay

tribute to my hon. Friend for drawing the House's attention the other day to the fact that it is no longer an alliance party and that they are not now entitled to the Supply days that they previously enjoyed. The Supply days have gone to the Ulster Unionists.
The Bill does refer not to my hon. Friend's point, but to the most serious and heinous crime of dog fighting, which is substantially on the increase. It needs to be stamped out in the most consistent and effective way. The Bill is a step towards that aim. More steps will be needed. Nevertheless, I welcome the Bill.

Mr. Greg Knight: I warmly welcome the Lords amendments. I know that they will also be welcomed by the Derbyshire Wildlife trust and the Derby branch of the RSPCA. I part company from my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne) who said that the Bill had received support from all sides of the House. It is worth mentioning that not one SLD or SDP Member has bothered to attend this important debate. They are conspicuous by their absence.

Mr. David Alton: I think that the hon. Gentleman needs a pair of spectacles.

Mr. Knight: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman, who has just wandered into the Chamber and who—

Mr. Alton: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Knight: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to finish this point I shall then give way. He was not present during our consideration of the Bill, but I am aware that he flitted in and out earlier, no doubt with an eye on his own Bill that is set down for debate later today.

Mr. Alton: The hon. Gentleman should not make remarks like that unless he can justify them. I have been in the Chamber for most of the morning and I listened to many of the contributions—most of them fascinating but many of them pretty irrelevant.

Mr. Knight: The hon. Gentleman is an expert in what is irrelevant. He has only just walked into the Chamber. He has taken no interest in the Bill, nor have any of his colleagues. I hope that he will decide to remain in the Chamber and listen to the rest of the debate.

Mr. Alton: The hon. Gentleman was not in the Chamber earlier when my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) introduced his very important Bill that provides for freedom for information and access to medical records. I am sorry that he was not present for that debate.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I must ask the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight) to refer to amendments Nos. 1 and 2 that we are now debating.

Mr. Knight: The hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) has confirmed my view that he is ignorant of many of the issues that have been discussed in this Chamber.

Mr. Skinner: Will the hon. Gentleman give way, just for a moment?

Mr. Knight: Yes, provided that it is to make a relevant point.

Mr. Skinner: Yes, it is. I have a sneaking suspicion that at the end of the debate the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) will trot out of the Chamber to speak to the BBC and LBC—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not at all relevant to the amendments that we are debating. I must ask the hon. Gentleman to resume his seat.

Mr. Skinner: All I want to say is that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill has intervened three times. If any hon. Member is filibustering, it is he.

Mr. Knight: I am sure that you would not permit me, Madam Deputy Speaker, to respond to that point. But I have noted what the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) said, and there is something in it.
The amendments passed by another place correct a flaw in the Bill. They catch those who knowingly advertise such functions, but I want my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester or my hon. Friend the Minister to answer two points.
I listened attentively to the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) who said that he hoped that on some future occasion we would deal with legislation to catch the person who advertises dog fights by word of mouth. I have looked in the Hansard of another place, which I shall paraphrase as you, Madam Deputy Speaker, would rule me out of order if I quoted it. The peer who moved the amendment said that it would include the written word, the poster, the leaflet, the flyposter and the oral communication. I am somewhat confused by the comments of Opposition Members, and I now wonder whether the amendment covers oral communication. If it does, we shall need to take care.

Mr. Cohen: As I read it, the amendment does not cover oral advertisement—the more is the pity in many respects. I referred to it because I think we need to come back to that at some future date, especially if someone is paid to advertise dog fighting by word of mouth

Mr. Knight: When reading the Lords amendment, I believe that a layman would come to the conclusion that we are talking only about a written advertisement, because it refers to publishing. However, the "Shorter Oxford English Dictionary" defines publication as:
The action of making publicly known; public notification or announcement".
There is no mention of its having to be in writing.
In view of the comments made in another place, will my hon. Friend the Minister, or my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester say whether the amendment catches the oral advertisement? I am thinking of the example of someone in a public house, who, when discussing various matters occurring in the community, says to someone else, "There is a disgusting dog fight at Skinners farm on Saturday at 12 o'clock." Would that fall within the scope of the Bill? According to what was said in another place, it would; yet from the comments of the hon. Member for Leyton, perhaps it would not. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister can answer that point.

Mr. Eric Forth (Mid-Worcestershire): Has my hon. Friend considered the other possibility, which I do not think has been mentioned? Someone, either by post or verbally, might say, "Do not attend this disgraceful

meeting where dog fighting will take place." Will that come under the scope of the amendment? The person would ostensibly be saying, "I am an animal lover, I urge you not to go to this event because it will harm animals." If such behaviour were included, it would cause some difficulty.

Mr. Knight: My hon. Friend has touched on the point that I am coming to. The amendment refers only to publishing or causing to be published an advertisement for a fight. It does not say that one has to exhort the public to attend. There is a severe danger that animal welfare groups telling people not to go to a dog fight, or people who oppose dog fighting having a discussion in a pub could be considered to be advertising that event. The House needs some reassurance that a person who opposes this vile practice, and is merely telling friends or colleagues not to attend, will not end up in court charged with an offence. Apart from these two areas of concern, I warmly welcome the amendment.

Mr. Robin Corbett: I welcome the Bill back to this place, and congratulate the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne) and the all-party sponsors, who will be especially pleased and flattered by the presence of the illustrious and hon. Gentleman, the Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones). He is known throughout the length and breadth of these islands as one of the strongest supporters of this Bill, given his well-known support for anything to do with animal welfare.
The amendments are important. They strengthen the armoury that the Bill seeks to provide to try to stamp out this vile and evil practice to get at those who advertise these events or cause them to be advertised and also those who take part in them. I want to echo a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen). Although a person who causes an advertisement to be published—I take that to be someone who walks into a newspaper or magazine office and puts an advert in coded form across the counter—may be caught by the Bill, I hope that no publishers, editors or advertising managers of newspapers or magazines will use that as an excuse to be casual or careless about accepting advertisements.
I was a journalist for some years and I think that all those concerned with the preparation, publication and distribution of newspapers and magazines have a responsibility to ensure that if they are not absolutely clear about the purpose of an advertisement, they should not publish or accept it until its purpose has been clarified. If prosecutions are brought against publishers, editors or advertising managers under the Bill. I hope that no court will be impressed by the defence that those people did not understand what the advertisement was about or that it seemed like a bit of a joke at the time. That would be irresponsible in the extreme.
I have no reason to believe that that happens, but in this narrow area of publishing one is justified in holding the suspicion that there are people in publishing who know what is happening and do nothing about it. On the back of some money which a publication may receive, those people may accept advertisements which the Bill will rule out.
We are concerned with a vile, disgusting and degrading sport, not only for the dogs and other animals concerned, but more importantly for the adults who take part. God only knows what effect that must have on them and their families. I hope that the amendments are accepted.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hogg): I entirely agree with the concluding remarks of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett). He is quite right to say that this is a violent and degrading sport, most particularly for those who participate. It is the kind of thing that is unworthy by any definition of that word
Against that background, the House would want to congratulate and thank my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne) on several counts. The first is his perceptive and very generous remarks about me. That seemed to show him to be a very clear-sighted Member of the House of Commons. On behalf of the whole Government Front Bench, I thank him for his comments.
I suppose that one should also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester for introducing the Bill. We must get our priorities right. Therefore, he is to be thanked first for his kind words and then for introducing his Bill. He is also to be thanked for his very clear explanation of the purpose behind the Bill and his explanation of the genesis of the amendments.
My hon. Friend raised the question of a connection between drug money and dog fighting. I am not aware that dog fighting has been used as a method for laundering drug money. I am not aware of any police report to that effect. However, if there is any evidence of such a connection, I would expect that to be brought to my attention and, because of the interest of my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones) in this matter, I will bring it to his attention also.
On behalf of the House, I should say that we are indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester for introducing the Bill and we are also indebted to the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen). I frequently disagree with the hon. Gentleman, as he is aware. However, he has been a powerful exponent of the argument to extend the Bill to include the concept of knowingly to advertise. There is no doubt that he played a prominent part in Committee, when he was able to attend. I make that point because although the Committee met three times, he was unable to attend on one occasion because of an unhappy incident in the Chamber; he was unable to be present because of Mr. Speaker's ruling. However, the hon. Gentleman has been prominent in bringing a gap in the law to the attention of the House and it is right that we should acknowledge what he has done.
There is a range of existing statutory and common law offences which touch on the issue, such as the offences of procuring, inciting and conspiracy, but it is highly desirable that we should introduce a specific statutory offence to deal with advertising. That is why the Lords agreed to the amendments, which I commend to the House.
The position of a publisher has always been difficult in law. The question is whether the offence should be absolute or require proof of knowledge. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) and I share the view that it is essential that the act of knowingly publishing should be rendered criminal. It should not be an absolute offence and that is why the Lords amendment was drafted in its present form. The proof of knowledge is an essential element in the commission of the offence and I hope that. that will reassure the newspaper industry and others who will come within the scope of the Bill.

Mr. Corbett: I agree with the Minister, but I hope that he will take on board my point that none of that absolves the publisher, editor or advertising manager of publications from ensuring as far as possible that they understand the nature of the advertisement that they are publishing.

Mr. Hogg: I entirely agree. I was going to make that point because, as a number of hon. Members have said, some advertisements are of a veiled kind. It is certainly the responsibility of an editor to scrutinise carefully advertisements that are capable of giving a message of the kind that we wish to strike at in the Bill. The Lords amendment will not only prohibit express advertisements, which are obvious, but will oblige editors and sub-editors to look more closely at the veiled advertisements, which might carry a similar message.
My hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight) asked two questions, in his perceptive and challenging way, one of which causes me some concern. I shall deal first with the one that causes me no concern. My hon. Friend asked what would happen if a person sought to advise others not to attend a dog fight and, in so doing, mentioned the existence or prospective existence of a dog fight. I have a number of answers to that. First, I doubt whether that would fall within the scope of the Bill. Secondly, there is always discretion about whether to prosecute, and, thirdly, if a court believed that a person was acting for the reason that my hon. Friend has described, an absolute discharge would be the appropriate penalty, even though an offence had been committed.
As for whether the publication needs to be in writing or can also be oral, my present feeling is that a publication must be in writing, but other forms of advertisement will be covered by the other kinds of offences that I have described.
We are dealing with an important amendment, which aims to meet a particular problem. For that reason, I commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 2 agreed to.

Private Members' Bills

ENVIRONMENT AND SAFETY INFORMATION BILL

Lords amendments considered.

Lords amendments Nos. 1 to 6 agreed to.

HORSES, PONIES AND DONKEYS (No. 2) BILL

Lords amendments considered.

Lords amendments Nos. 1 to 6 agreed to.

LANDLORD AND TENANT BILL [LORDS]

Order for Third Reading read.

[Queen's Consent on behalf of the Queen and Prince of Wales's Consent, signified.]

Bill read the Third time, and passed, without amendment.

SOLICITORS (SCOTLAND) BILL

Order for Third Reading read.

Bill read the Third time and passed, with amendments.

ABORTION (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for consideration read.

Hon. Members: Object.

To be further considered upon Monday 11 July.

CREDIT (CONTROL) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Elliot Morley: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Was there an objection? I did not hear. On a credit issue, where the Government have announced a major change, is it in order for hon. Members to object?

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. Let me help the hon. Member. The voices had not been collected at that time. An objection can be made at any time. There was an objection.

Second Reading deferred till Monday 11 July.

ROAD TRAFFIC (BLOOD ALCOHOL CONCENTRATION LIMIT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Not printed.

TRANSPLANT NOTIFICATION BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Not printed.

RIGHT OF PRIVACY BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

SMALL FIRMS (LIBERATION) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

SALE OF WAR TOYS (PROHIBITION) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 28 October.

SUNDAY SPORTS BILL [LORDS]

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

Mr. Greg Knight: Friday 15 July.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Does the hon. Member have the authority of the Member in charge of the Bill to name a day?

Mr. Greg Knight: I am content to leave it as no day named.

ARMED FORCES (HOUSING) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Not printed.

LEGAL PROFESSION (ABOLITION OF RESTRICTIVE PRACTICES) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Not printed.

CEMETERIES (CONTROL OF SALE ETC.) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

EMPTY PROPERTY AND COMMUNITY AID BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Monday 11 July.

SMOKE DETECTORS IN HOUSES BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Not printed.

ELIMINATION OF POVERTY IN OLD AGE BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 28 October.

PALACE OF WESTMINSTER (REMOVAL OF CROWN IMMUNITY) BILL

Madam Deputy Speaker: The Queen's consent has not been obtained. Therefore, I cannot propose the Question.

Ms. Joan Walley: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I give notice that I shall take up this matter urgently with the Leader of the House. To the best of my knowledge, I have complied with the procedures. I have written to the relevant Departments. I have asked them to take up the matter to get the Queen's Consent. Today, I was most surprised to receive a letter from the Public Bill Office, stating that the last instruction that was received from me was to suspend application. That is not the case. I intend to seek application. I wonder whether there is even a conspiracy to stop the Bill coming forward. [Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady is taking a wise action.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I listened carefully to what my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms. Walley) said about the Bill. Are we to understand that the dilatory behaviour of the Palace is preventing the House from debating an important measure to protect the conditions of staff employed in this building and to give them the conditions that they would enjoy anywhere else?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Let me help the hon. Gentleman if I can. It is no reflection on the Palace, as the hon. Lady knows. An application is made to a Minister, and the hon. Lady is perfectly entitled and right to take the action that she now proposes to take.

Mr. Corbyn: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Are we to understand that the slothful behaviour of the relevant Ministers is preventing the Palace consenting to the Bill being debated?

Madam Deputy Speaker: It has nothing to do with the Palace. I think that I have explained the situation. The hon. Lady knows exactly the procedure that she is now to adopt.

Ms. Walley: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have written to the Secretary of State for Employment. There seems to have been some mix-up between the Public Bill Office and the Secretary of State for Employment. As my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) quite rightly pointed out, the people who work in the House—those who work in the canteens and everyone else—deserve proper public protection. I intend to pursue the matter.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I shall answer the hon. Lady, because she is quite right in pursuing the matter in the way that she is.

Second Reading deferred till Monday 11 July.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I heard my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms. Walley) say that there is a complication with regard to the matter being progressed. You, Madam Deputy Speaker, said that it was not the fault of anybody at Buckingham palace. We now find out that it is not the Minister's fault. I want to know whose fault it is. It is time that misleading replies were ended. If it is not the fault of the Palace or of the Minister, let us get on and pass the Bill so that people here on poverty-stricken wages can have a fair deal.

Madam Deputy Speaker: The hon. Lady is taking action to see that that is done and that her position is preserved.

Mr. Corbyn: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I understand that the Bill is coming back for a Second Reading on Monday. Could the Ministers who are present at the moment ensure that, by Monday, it is clear to the House that we are in a position to debate the Bill to allow a degree of protection of employment for staff in this building similar to that which they would enjoy anywhere else?

Madam Deputy Speaker: It is not a matter for the Chair. There are Ministers on the Treasury Bench. The hon. Lady is doing absolutely the right thing in preserving her position at this time.

TAKEOVER AND MERGERS (EMPLOYMENT PROTECTION) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Not printed.

MISUSE OF DRUGS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

CERVICAL CANCER (TESTING AND TREATMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Monday 11 July.

SCHOOL BUS PASSES (REVISION OF REGULATIONS)BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

MYALGIC ENCEPHALOMYELITIS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Member: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 28 October.

UNDERGROUND FIRES (RESEARCH AND CONTROL) AND LAND PROTECTION BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 28 October.

INDECENT DISPLAYS (NEWSPAPERS) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Monday 11 July.

SCOTTISH CONSTITUTION (REFERENDUM) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Monday 11 July.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Is it appropriate for Ministers continually to object to a Bill which is advisory, or is it merely in keeping with their tradition of insulting European nations as shown by the Secretary of State on Wednesday?

Madam Deputy Speaker: The hon. Lady is familiar with our procedure on private Members' Bills.

POLYURETHANE FOAM (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 15 July.

WORKING LIFE (REDUCTION IN HOURS) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 15 July.

STATUTORY MINIMUM WAGE BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

COAL MINING SUBSIDENCE (DAMAGE AND ARBITRATION) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 15 July.

COAL MINING SUBSIDENCE (PREVENTION AND PUBLIC AWARENESS) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 15 July.

VACCINE DAMAGE (COMPENSATION ARRANGEMENTS) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Not printed.

LOCAL AUTHORITY SEARCHES AND ENQUIRIES ETC. BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Not printed.

RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY (ESTABLISHMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 15 July.

ALCOHOL (HEALTH WARNING) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Not printed.

PRIVATE SECURITY BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Not printed, but the hon. Member may claim another day.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 15 July.

FOOD AND ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION ACT (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 15 July.

ABORTION (TREATMENT OF NON-RESIDENT WOMEN) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

UNBORN CHILDREN (PROTECTION) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

CITIZENS' COMPENSATION RIGHTS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Not printed.

POLICE ACT 1964 (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Not printed.

TENANCIES OF BREWERY COMPANIES (REGULATION) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Monday 11 July.

Mr. Graham Allen: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for an individual who may have interests in the brewing industry to object to a Bill concerned with the protection of landlords?

Madam Deputy Speaker: It is up to any hon. Member to object. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the Select Committee on Procedure.

GAZUMPING (ABOLITION) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Not printed.

TAXI-CABS (CONTROL OF SMOKING) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.]

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 15 July.

Mr. Bahadur Singh

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Garel-Jones.]

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can you tell the House to how many Bills the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones) has objected today and how many people will be adversely affected as a result?

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): It is not within my remit to notice who is actually objecting. I hear voices.

Mr. Eric Forth (Mid-Worcestershire): Further to that point of order. Madam Deputy Speaker. Will you confirm that, quite correctly, objections have been made from both sides of the House? Will you further confirm that a Bill which had passed most of its stages in the House was objected to by Opposition Members? Will you make it clear that any Member in any part of the House is entitled to object on a Friday?

Madam Deputy Speaker: I am sure that when hon. Members read the Official Report on Monday they will see that that is the case. Meanwhile, this discussion is coming out of a private Member's time. I call Mr. Tom Clarke.

Mr. Tom Clarke: This debate concerns the treatment of the late Bahadur Singh in Barlinnie prison. Even as I speak these words, I find it difficult to contemplate that a man 26 years of age, who lived for a short time in Coatbridge in my constituency and for whom I had been making representations from mid-winter until spring this year, died on 12 May—the day after his release, following six months in Barlinnie prison. Time after time, as his solicitor took up the case, his friends the Banga family in Coatbridge came to see me. I can still hear them saying, as they frequently did, "They will kill him, they will kill him." Throughout, they had a lack of faith in the administration of British justice which many now think proved chillingly perceptive.
I consider the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton), to be one of the most humane of hon. Members, with a fine record as a Back Bencher interested in penal reform issues. I have to say, however, that after a number of representations and warnings, I cannot regard Mr. Singh's death on a bus on the way home in the Punjab as a coincidence. There are far wider implications—of civil liberties, of basic human rights, of racism in Scottish prisons and, until recent times, a lack of Scottish Office concern about the problem—and I believe that these should be urgently addressed.
Bahadur Singh had been languishing in Barlinnie prison after his arrest for a breach of the immigration laws, for not having proper documentation. Last year, he went to stay in Scotland with his friends, restaurant owner Autar Banga and Mrs. Jasbir Banga. In November, he was reported to the immigration authorities and arrested. He appeared in Airdrie sheriff court on Monday 9 November, when he pleaded guilty to a contravention of the

Immigration Act 1971. He was fined £120 but because he had no money on his person, he was sentenced to 28 days and sent to Barlinnie pending the outcome of an appeal.
I first took up his case with the Home Office on 18 November 1987, as Mr. Singh had sought political asylum. He was kept in prison while his application was processed. The inevitable questions arise: why did it take so long for the Home Ofice to make a decision and why, during the decision-making process, was he kept in prison? Those matters are diminished in importance by the most basic question of all: how was Bahadur Singh treated while he was in Barlinnie prison?
I first drew the Government's attention to allegations of violence against Bahadur Singh when I wrote to the Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton), on 11 February and again on 26 February 1988. I understand that Mr. Singh changed his mind about appealing for political asylum from time to time, but as I said then in my letter to the Minister, Mr. Singh's
indecision over his appeal results from … bullying and abuse which has caused very great distress.
The Minister's written reply, received more than a month later, directed me to the Scottish Office, while the Minister proposed
to maintain his detention in view of his previous disregard for … immigration control.
Allegations of violence and racism continued, so on 28 March I wrote to the prison governor, Mr. Walker, that from the outset of Mr. Singh's
committal to Barlinnie, I have had reports from his visitors of physical and cruel verbal abuse.
After a brief acknowledgment, the governor replied on 21 April, nearly a month later, in the following words:
I have had the allegations investigated by a member of my senior management team. Mr. Singh speaks virtually no English and it was necessary to interview him through another inmate who was acting as an interpreter.
In that interview, according to the governor's letter, Mr. Singh apparently stated that he
had no particular problems at that time
and no real fears for his own safety, although a few slogans had been daubed on his cell door. That account of the investigation is strongly disputed and I shall return to it later.
I would have expected that a matter as serious as this, raised by a Member of the House, would have been personally investigated by the governor and not delegated as a matter of little importance. Moreover, a letter from the governor to Strathclyde community relations council a few weeks later implied that there had been no problems with the treatment of ethnic minority prisoners. In the words of the council, his reply was "complacent" and "misleading"; it was not consistent with the facts.
I was still very unhappy as allegations continued to mount, so I wrote to the Secretary of State for Scotland on 3 May 1988. One of the most unacceptable aspects of the whole affair is that the Secretary of State's office did not reply to my letter until Thursday 2 June—the day when, by another remarkable coincidence, the Glasgow Evening Times broke the news to his office that Mr. Singh had died several weeks before. I believe that the House is entitled to an explanation for that insensitive delay from t he Secretary of State. At the very least, his role seems to represent administrative incompetence which cannot be dismissed lightly in view of the tragic consequences.
I have now had the opportunity to speak at length to crucial witnesses of the alleged events. Mr. Mohammed


Sattar is a young Pakistani who at one point shared a cell with Bahadur Singh. It should be said in passing that Mr. Sattar had a fracas with his girl friend—now happily his wife—which led to a short stay in prison. There is a conflict of evidence between Mr. Sattar and Mr. Walker, the prison governor. Whereas Mr. Walker had said—I return to my earlier point—that Mr. Singh had made no complaint, Mohammed Sattar insists—and I can confirm that his English is very fluent—that he acted as an interpreter for Mr. Singh in the presence of the governor's representative, and that Mr. Singh did, indeed, complain about beatings and racist behaviour. In my conversation with Mr. Sattar he repeated the allegations that he had first made in the Glasgow Evening Times when he said:
They were just banging at them with steel bars and Bahadur and the other man were on their knees trying to protect themselves.
I can do no other than underline that conflict of evidence in the hope that the matter will be investigated.
I have also talked, with the help of an interpreter, to another key witness, Mr. Vijay Kumar. Mr. Kumar had also alleged that he had suffered racial harassment while an inmate in Barlinnie prison, again as a result of a breach of immigration rules. However, on 16 June 1988, when his case came before Lord Weir in the Court of Session, Mr. Kumar was set free. Lord Weir used the following words:
It was not in the tradition of the Scottish administration of justice for someone to be detained for months and months in such circumstances.
I cannot stress too strongly that it is of the utmost importance that no steps should be taken to deport Mr. Kumar from this country before he has the opportunity to give evidence to an inquiry into the scale of racial harassment in Scottish prisons and, in particular, the death of Bahadur Singh. My hon. Friends and I hope that the Under-Secretary can give us an assurance to that effect today. Let me add that it is a tragic pity that Lord Weir was never given the opportunity to reach the same conclusion in the case of Bahadur Singh.
Having spent four hours last Sunday listening to Mohammed Sattar and Vijay Kumar, I am convinced that they are telling the truth. I understand that the Minister has already taken some steps, and I thank him for that; but I insist that the problem warrants a full and open public inquiry. The Scottish Office must demonstrate that it takes the issue of racism seriously by responding to that call.
The allegations are serious ones. They are that Mr. Bahadur Singh was subjected to a series of harrowing racial attacks while in one of Her Majesty's prisons; that Mr. Singh, a timid man who spoke virtually no English, was beaten up in his cell by five white inmates carrying metal bars and kitchen knives; that he was attacked while he mixed with other prisoners; that he had hot tea and soup thrown at him and was struck by a metal tray in the dining room; that racial slogans and threats were daubed on his cell door; and that the wardens specifically responsible for that part of the prison pretended not to notice any of this. It could hardly have helped that there is the suggestion—and I can go no further than that—that Mr. Singh was kept for some of his stay in a cell for 23 hours per day with a light on permanently.
I have been told by the Under-Secretary that Mr. Singh was medically examined on 28 April. But even if that was so, it does not explain what happened between that date and 12 May when he was released.
There are other questions to be answered. Why did it take six months to deal with such a case? Are there other similar cases in Scottish prisons at the moment? Why, after such delays, was he rushed straight on to a plane and deported without being allowed to let friends and relations know what was happening? Is it true that he spent his last night in Scotland, not in Barlinnie, but in a police cell in Strathclyde police headquarters, and if so, why was he moved and why did his friends not have access? What precisely was the state of Mr. Singh's health at that time and, frankly, was he fit to undertake that long flight?
Why do we lock up illegal immigrants beside violent criminals in our toughest jails? Why do we run that risk of racist intimidation or, to put it another way, condemn people, whose only crime was to want to live here, to long periods of solitary confinement for their own protection? Why is there no purpose-built detention centre for immigration cases in Scotland, or at least a special arrangement with low security prisons? In a recent reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Dunnachie), the Minister said that there are so few such cases in Scottish prisons that special arrangements are not neccessary. Surely the Minister accepts that if the numbers involved are so small, the establishment of a special detention centre would be so much simpler. It might be even less costly than present arrangements.
What special arrangements exist in our prisons for religious worship by minorities? What proportion of our prison officers come from ethnic minorities, and what steps are the Government taking to boost recruitment? What arrangements for special diets exist in Scottish prisons, and how sensitively are cultural questions tackled by prison administrators? Are there any members of ethnic minorities who are prison visitors in Barlinnie, and will the Under-Secretary tell us how he plans to increase their number around Scotland? I understand that the Home Office in England and Wales has recommended that each prison should have a race relations policy and senior management given proper training. Has any such policy even been talked about by the Scottish Office? Is racial harassment a problem in its own right or does the Scottish Office treat it as just another breach of prison rules?
For all those reasons, I have called for an official inquiry into Bahadur Singh's detention and subsequent death. I try not to underestimate the problems of administering Scottish prisons and I have no difficulty in accepting that the vast majority of prison staff are thoroughly decent people. But that cannot, on its own, be enough. If there is something wrong with the system we must try to put it right, and what is wrong is the absence of a clear, central anti-racist policy.
Bahadur Singh is dead. But there are, I hope, many lessons that we can learn from his short life—particularly the last six months of it. We must face facts and tackle racism in our prisons and in wider society as a matter of urgency. This is, I believe, the least we can do in tribute to a young man whose love for this land was greater than we could return.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): The hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) contributes a service by raising some extremely serious matters.
I share the concern of the hon. Member that the members of the ethnic community who find themselves for whatever reason detained in Scottish prisons, should have no fear of persecution and should be able to enjoy a satisfactory quality of life. In particular, I utterly condemn racism, wherever it occurs.
It would be fair to say that I have received no evidence that there is any widespread problem of abuse against inmates of ethnic origin in Scottish prisons. Prison staff are aware that they must be vigilant for evidence of abuse, and any breach of prison discipline by an inmate which is related to racial discrimination of any sort would be treated very seriously indeed.
If it became clear that measures were needed either to help members of ethnic communities or to stamp out racial discrimination, such measures would be taken swiftly by prison governors. Indeed, following the allegations of abuse against Mr. Singh, the governor of Barlinnie prison has held constructive discussions with representatives of the Asian community and has taken a number of immediate measures to help ease the problems which might be encountered by members of the ethnic community in prison. In particular, the governor has introduced a practice of locating inmates from ethnic communities together for mutual support and companionship; invited the community groups to undertake the translation of the prison's rule book into the four major Asian languages—an invitation that I understand has been accepted; discussed with the community groups visit arrangements for members of ethnic communities; discussed the special diet requirements of members of ethnic communities; and discussed with the community groups the provision of newspapers and reading materials in the major Asian languages.
All those steps should make a positive contribution towards improving the well-being and the quality of life of members of the ethnic communities located in Barlinnie prison. It is Barlinnie prison which holds the majority of persons detained under the Immigration Acts in Scotland. The numbers held at any one time are small and I understand that 11 are currently being held.
Nevertheless, my Department will be writing to governors of all other Scottish prisons, outlining the steps taken at Barlinnie, and inviting them to consider how far it may be appropriate to introduce similar procedures in their own establishments.
In addition, I have asked Her Majesty's chief inspector of prisons to consider whether there are any further improvements which the prison service ought to be making to the general arrangements for accommodating members of ethnic groups in Scottish prisons. I am anxious that the study should be concluded as soon as is practicable and I expect to have the chief inspector's report well before the end of the year.
The decision that Mr. Singh should be detained under the Immigration Act 1971, on completion of his prison sentence on 4 December, as the subject of deportation proceedings for overstaying, is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. He tells me that a deportation order was signed on 3 February 1988. Enforcement of the

order was delayed by the need to take full account of the representations made on Mr. Singh's behalf and by the need to consider his application for asylum, as well as the statutory requirements which prevent an order from being made and enforced before the expiry of the time limit set for appeal against deportation.
These are, as I have said, matters for my right hon. Friend. But the hon. Gentleman has also raised a number of matters concerning Mr. Singh's treatment while he was held in Barlinnie prison, and for these I accept full responsibility.

Mr. William McKelvey: rose—

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I am reluctant to give way because I have so much ground to cover.
Let me assure the hon. Member for Monklands, West that I take all such allegations very seriously. The hon. Gentleman has questioned the time—five weeks—which it took me to reply after he raised the allegations with me on 3 May. By that time Mr. Singh had been moved to accommodation where he could be kept under close observation. I first saw a photocopy of the hon. Gentleman's letter on 9 May. In his letter, the hon. Gentleman expressed dissatisfaction with the replies he had received from the governor of Barlinnie prison and asked for a more thorough investigation into the alleged assaults. Such an investigation was instigated immediately. It took three weeks to complete and the report was received by my Department on 26 May. I do not think that the period is unreasonable, given that the hon. Gentleman had expressed dissatisfaction with the earlier replies and asked for a more thorough and careful investigation.
I understand that the hon. Gentleman first raised the question of Mr. Singh's treatment in Barlinnie with the Home Office on 26 February and was immediately advised that complaints about Mr. Singh's treatment in Barlinnie were a matter for the Scottish Office. It was not until 3 May—some three months later—that the hon. Gentleman wrote to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and myself about the allegations.

Mr. Tom Clarke: If the Minister reads my speech he will see that I took the matter up immediately with the governor of Barlinnie prison. I went to the Scottish Office when I regarded the reply from the governor as being unsatisfactory.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Yes. However, the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the letter that he sent to me included a letter from the lawyers which said:
perhaps you would pursue this matter with the Secretary of State and urge that either Mr. Singh be given full protection or alternatively the deportation procedure be speeded up as quickly as possible.
In fact, he was deported three days later.
I wrote to the hon. Member on 9 June, setting out the results of my Department's investigations into the complaints of assaults on and prior to 23 April. I should make it clear that neither the prison authorities nor the prisons department have received any complaint, from any source, of alleged assaults on Mr. Singh after that date. The hon. Member will know that the procurator fiscal is conducting his own investigation into the allegations that Mr. Singh and another Asian inmate, Mr. Kumar, were assaulted by other inmates at Barlinnie. I am not able to comment upon the alleged assaults in any detail today.


However, I have passed papers on this case to the Crown Office in the hope that they will be of assistance to the procurator fiscal.
Although I cannot comment on the alleged assaults in detail, I would like to make clear to the House that, at the governor's request, a medical examination of Mr. Singh was carried out at Barlinnie prison on 28 April following complaints of assaults. The medical officer noted minor bruising to Mr. Singh's left upper arm. Mr. Singh also complained of discomfort in the left loin. In the medical officer's opinion, Mr. Singh's injuries were of a minor nature and no treatment was required. Mr. Singh made no further complaints to the medical officer at that time. In particular, he did not complain, when examined, of any pain or discomfort in his head. Consequently, neither the prison authorities nor the Home Office had any reason to think that Mr. Singh was not in a fit state to travel to India. No evidence is available to my Department to link Mr. Singh's reported death in India with his stay at Barlinnie prison. Were evidence to become available to the Department, it would be passed to the procurator fiscal.

Mr. Tom Clarke: Will the Minister confirm that between 28 April—the Minister referred to the medical examination—and 12 May, when Mr. Singh was released from Barlinnie, no medical assessment was made?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: If I am unable to complete my speech, I shall write to the hon. Gentleman about any matters that I have omitted. I want to set out the Home Office procedures, but I may not have time.
As to accommodation for persons detained under the Immigration Act, the decision on whether a person should be held in custody is, as I have explained, one for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who may exercise administrative powers in certain circumstances, and the courts. Where, in the considered opinion of the courts or my right hon. Friend, custody is necessary to prevent absconding, or for any other reason, the Scottish prison service takes all necessary measures to ensure that inmates are held under the proper conditions. In particular—contrary to what has been alleged in certain press reports —persons detained under the Immigration Act are not usually put in beside convicted inmates. The normal practice is for them to be held at local prisons beside other untried inmates. They receive all the same privileges as untried inmates, including the right to visits every day except Sunday.
It is open to any inmate to discuss with prison staff any difficulties which he or she may be experiencing. They will always take steps to ensure his safety. This may include transfer to another location, or special supervision, on occasion. This is what happened at Barlinnie after the alleged assaults were brought to the attention of the governor.
The hon. Member has suggested that there is a need for special accommodation for persons detained under the Immigration Act. It has been suggested that the arrangements in Scotland are inadequate compared with those in England and Wales. This is not so.
I am told that there is a detention unit at Harmondsworth, adjacent to Heathrow airport, which is managed by the immigration service and which may be used for any person liable to detention under the

Immigration Act. It can be used for potential deportees but its capacity is limited to about 90 and it is primarily used for passengers who have been refused leave to enter or who have been detained pending further inquiries. It is a statutory requirement in both jurisdictions that any such persons detained for more than five days must be held in the detention unit at Harmondsworth, in prison or in a remand centre. I should clarify my statement of Tuesday last by making it clear that detention in legalised police cells is used for up to five days.
It is certainly true that the greater number of such detainees held at any one time in England and Wales means that they may be located together. There is, for example, a remand centre in the London area which can hold a number of potential deportees at any one time. In Scotland, we have no adult remand centres, but remand prisoners are kept separate from convicted prisoners. In this, there is no difference in the way potential deportees are treated on this side of the border. On individual cases, the Scottish Office and the Home Office do and will keep in close contact about the most appropriate location for the individual concerned. We are always ready to listen to representations from community groups or representatives of those waiting to be deported.
I should mention that only a very small number of persons are held in Scottish prisons at any one time under the Immigration Act. This week, for example, there were just 11 cases. Three of those persons also face drug charges and, if convicted, may well be given prison sentences. Another is due to be deported next week. I should imagine that such a very small number from a prison population of more than 5,000 would make it difficult to justify the cost of providing special accommodation, but that is an aspect that I would expect Her Majesty's chief inspector of prisons to cover in the report that I have requested from him. We shall of course approach his recommendation with a completely open mind.
I hope that I have made it clear to the House that the Scottish prison service takes seriously its responsibilities towards members of the ethnic community who are detained in custody. Racial discrimination in our prisons will not be condoned and swift measures will be taken if it occurs. I have already said that the procurator fiscal is investigating the specific allegation of assault against Mr. Singh and Mr. Kumar, the inmates whose cases the hon. Member for Monklands, West raised with me. The governor of Barlinnie has had constructive discussions with—

Mr. Tom Clarke: Will the Minister give way?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to answer the point about Mr. Kumar. That allegation is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. I shall make certain that he receives the representations and that he is kept informed. The hon. Gentleman also referred to lights in the prison cells. It appears from inquiries that I made this morning that Mr. Singh was not at any time kept in a cell with a light on during the night. Mr. Kumar was briefly kept under close observation on the medical officer's advice after he reacted badly to the news of the death of his friend in India. That involved observations at regular intervals during the night, so a light was kept on in the cell. That is standard procedure when an inmate is distressed, and it is followed on the medical officer's advice.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary told me that Mr. Singh, a native of India, was given leave on 18 May 1986 to enter the United Kingdom to attend a family wedding in Derby. A condition of his entry was that he would not take up any employment while he was here. He was subsequently given an extension to remain in the country until 28 January 1987.
I understand that Mr. Singh then disappeared from view. He did not leave the country on the agreed date. Nothing further was heard from him until 6 November 1987 when he was discovered by the immigration service working without authority at a restaurant in Coatbridge. He was arrested and charged with knowingly overstaying his leave in the United Kingdom. On 17 November 1987 he was sentenced to 28 days in prison, instead of a fine, for this offence.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary then decided that, following completion of that sentence, Mr. Singh

should be deported from the United Kingdom. He was served with notice of the intention to deport him and given the appropriate forms to enable him to appeal, should he wish to do so. Taking into account Mr. Singh's conduct since his entry to this country, my right hon. Friend took the view that Mr. Singh would abscond on completion of his sentence. He therefore concluded that Mr. Singh should be kept in detention, pending his deportation.
I am told that Mr. Singh chose not to appeal formally against his deportation. However, on 18 November 1987 the hon. Member for Monklands, West wrote to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary enclosing a letter from Mr. Singh's solicitors—

The motion having been made after hall-past Two o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at twelve minutes past Three o'clock.